MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Dook on February 03, 2010, 08:57
-
After all this happening with StockXpert closure and FT comissions, independents are really going to think about going exclusive with IS, once again. I think the only good news could be SS exclusivity. I do not know what are they waiting for?
-
I couldn't agree more. SS need to do something, I am sure there are a lot of us that would love to contribute exclusive images to them. They have been my biggest miscrostock earner and I would like to see them being a strong rival to istock/getty in years to come. If they came up with the right deal, they would soon have an exclusive collection to rival istock.
-
Please, just not total exclusivity... I am for exclusive files option, but in present, Shutterstock is the backbone for independent photographers. With this site exclusive, and giving search advantage to some, I would have to leave micro and head towards macro agencies. Which I do not want.
-
I would go exclusive with SS in an instant as they are my main source of income.
I think that it would be a great move... what about to double commissions' values?
That would be nice
-
I would like to go exclusive if they implement this option.
-
No I can't agree with this...
SS is cca 30 % of my total income, this mean that eventual exclusive program need to bring about 70% more...
That is impossible....
Also subscription site doesn't need unique photos from exclusivity they need new, new and new photos....
Exclusivity isn't benefit for them....
Newer is better...
-
yep you're probably right...
-
Yeah, I'm not sure an exclusive option would work well there. A raise would be nice though.
-
No I can't agree with this...
SS is cca 30 % of my total income, this mean that eventual exclusive program need to bring about 70% more...
That is impossible....
Also subscription site doesn't need unique photos from exclusivity they need new, new and new photos....
Exclusivity isn't benefit for them....
Newer is better...
But they aren't a subscription only site. With StockXpert going, there are only 3 sites selling more pay per download for me now. I think there is a strong possibility that they will close BigStock and move their buyers to SS. I also think that subs buyers are more likely to stay with SS if they have some exclusive content. It is too easy to go to other sites with the same content now.
-
No I can't agree with this...
SS is cca 30 % of my total income, this mean that eventual exclusive program need to bring about 70% more...
That is impossible....
Also subscription site doesn't need unique photos from exclusivity they need new, new and new photos....
Exclusivity isn't benefit for them....
Newer is better...
But they aren't a subscription only site. With StockXpert going, there are only 3 sites selling more pay per download for me now. I think there is a strong possibility that they will close BigStock and move their buyers to SS. I also think that subs buyers are more likely to stay with SS if they have some exclusive content. It is too easy to go to other sites with the same content now.
The problem is, what will they give the contributors to choose exclusivity?
At the moment, their priciest subscription is 250$/month, that translates to 33c/image.
The top tier is earning 38c. If your SS earnings are 50% of total(I think that's a pretty big number), you'll need double the earnings for the same amount of money. That would bring the top tier to 76c per image. that's 43c loss for SS on each image sold. I know most buyers don't use the full quota but on those numbers they'll have to use less than half for SS just barely make a profit.
One way it could work is if they increased prices, but that may not be the best option right now.
-
But they aren't a subscription only site. With StockXpert going, there are only 3 sites selling more pay per download for me now. I think there is a strong possibility that they will close BigStock and move their buyers to SS. I also think that subs buyers are more likely to stay with SS if they have some exclusive content. It is too easy to go to other sites with the same content now.
Is this where I write the naive reply that they won't close BigStock? :D
I hope they do and I hope they offer some exclusive photo benefit or exclusive contributor option.
I'm one of the people that would go 100% with SS.
I like IS and their program, especially the CV for buyers to find good results. The 15 uploads a week isn't that big of a problem most of the time, but it is limiting for many people. SS takes editorial and RF and they both sell. Nothing against IS but SS is paying best for what I produce.
For me it would work and I'd be happy to have just ShutterStock and Alamy.
Who knows what they plan to do with BigStock. It was looking like it would become the on demand site, but when they tested removing that option from SS contributors were up in arms. Or at least an loud angry mob with pitchforks and torches!
-
^^ Yup, I earn more with SS ODs than I do at BigStock.
-
I would be right there on Team Shutterstock if the did some type of exclusivity. It's my best money earner. Whatever I shoot or make for the micros... I do with SS in mind first and upload to there first. It would be nice to get a 6 month in advance notice....lol.
-
No I can't agree with this...
SS is cca 30 % of my total income, this mean that eventual exclusive program need to bring about 70% more...
That is impossible....
Also subscription site doesn't need unique photos from exclusivity they need new, new and new photos....
Exclusivity isn't benefit for them....
Newer is better...
But they aren't a subscription only site. With StockXpert going, there are only 3 sites selling more pay per download for me now. I think there is a strong possibility that they will close BigStock and move their buyers to SS. I also think that subs buyers are more likely to stay with SS if they have some exclusive content. It is too easy to go to other sites with the same content now.
The problem is, what will they give the contributors to choose exclusivity?
At the moment, their priciest subscription is 250$/month, that translates to 33c/image.
The top tier is earning 38c. If your SS earnings are 50% of total(I think that's a pretty big number), you'll need double the earnings for the same amount of money. That would bring the top tier to 76c per image. that's 43c loss for SS on each image sold. I know most buyers don't use the full quota but on those numbers they'll have to use less than half for SS just barely make a profit.
One way it could work is if they increased prices, but that may not be the best option right now.
I don't see any problem with charging twice as much for an exclusive image. Subs are so much cheaper than pay per download and they haven't kept pace with the price rises. There must be room for higher priced subs, I am making $0.70 and $1.05 for some with DT and they are non-exclusive. If DT can do it with non-exclusive images, SS can with exclusive images.
-
I agree, i think that exclusivity is the way to go however it can't be the draconian version that exists at iS.
-
Actually, in a selfish look... I would hope they do it on a image basis. This way I would not have to wait 6 months. Everything new I could make exclusive...and I would have time to look and see what images are not on other sites and make them exclusive also.
-
Actually, in a selfish look... I would hope they do it on a image basis. This way I would not have to wait 6 months. Everything new I could make exclusive...and I would have time to look and see what images are not on other sites and make them exclusive also.
Actually that's the best way to do it. They could have exclusive images, which would attract buyers and keep the usual fare of 10 million images that are on 200 sites, everywhere in the world. It wouldn't take a bunch of sorting through and complicated re-write of the site. Just add the exclusive, leave the rest as they are. The SS exclusive images would be selective and could attract a better price as well as some buyers who want something different.
So not exclusive contributors, but exclusive images, like some other places have been doing.
Best part of that would be I could then keep my IS account and have the two sites that matter and make good sales. ;D
-
I feel misplaced when I see people embracing the subscription model so eagerly. :-\
-
It's a model that seems to work for my images. IS is behind, BS and DT for me. SS is first by a mile. Only makes sense to me to follow who makes me the money.
If IS is the place that makes you the money...and you want to get a crown... do it. Same thing for any of the sites that make the money for the contributor.
-
Hmm, yes... Each exclusive image can cost 2 sub downloads instead of one, contributor gets double royalty(or atleast close to double), prices for subscription should remain the same(or raise a little), and buyers won't probably mind because they already have alot of images per day. Only ones that won't benefit directly would be SS, but they can benefit from alot of exclusive content and it may gain more market share from other agencies. Hmm.. What do you guys think? Somebody suggest this to SS?
-
Doesn't look like there are any plans for exclusive images. Have a look at this thread and the blog interview translated from German.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=76255&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=76255&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2010/02/04/treffen-interview-mit-shutterstock-cfo-adam-riggs/&twu=1 (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2010/02/04/treffen-interview-mit-shutterstock-cfo-adam-riggs/&twu=1)
-
It's hard to speculate (on how you can just easily double the revenue for exclusives) if you don't know their business figures. Maybe this wouldn't be sustainable, just like old IS canisters weren't.
-
It's hard to speculate (on how you can just easily double the revenue for exclusives) if you don't know their business figures. Maybe this wouldn't be sustainable, just like old IS canisters weren't.
Do you really think the old IS canisters weren't sustainable? I never believed that, I am sure that was just used as an excuse for istock to decrease commissions and increase their profits before Getty/istock is sold off.
-
It's hard to speculate (on how you can just easily double the revenue for exclusives) if you don't know their business figures. Maybe this wouldn't be sustainable, just like old IS canisters weren't.
Do you really think the old IS canisters weren't sustainable? I never believed that, I am sure that was just used as an excuse for istock to decrease commissions and increase their profits before Getty/istock is sold off.
It probably wasn't sustainable with regards to how much money do they wanna make. Especially with the ever increasing number of images, submitters, submitter canisters, and costs associated with these increases (I don't belive the buyers are increasing as rapidly). But again, this is just a speculation.
-
Doesn't look like there are any plans for exclusive images. Have a look at this thread and the blog interview translated from German.
[url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=76255&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0[/url] ([url]http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=76255&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0[/url])
[url]http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2010/02/04/treffen-interview-mit-shutterstock-cfo-adam-riggs/&twu=1[/url] ([url]http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.alltageinesfotoproduzenten.de/2010/02/04/treffen-interview-mit-shutterstock-cfo-adam-riggs/&twu=1[/url])
Read that. Kinda hard to follow in English. DT is my #2 but far behind SS. I guess if I want to be exclusive... it would have to be there. If thats how it is.. my images and I will remain independent. Too bad because I would go SS Exclusive without any hesitation.
-
It's a model that seems to work for my images. IS is behind, BS and DT for me. SS is first by a mile. Only makes sense to me to follow who makes me the money.
So, if FT was your best earner, their constant changes in policies paying you less and less wouldn't mind you?
-
Fortunately.. I pulled my little port from there a while back.
I can "what if" all day long. Would you if iStock did the same? Would you if Gettys did not allow you to Opt out? Would you if Corbis bought Dreamstime and made it a full sub site? Insert whatever scenario you will.
If what you do with your images make sense to you.. then do it.
Micro is killing Macro... did you stop uploading then?
Subs are Killing Micro...now what?
-
SS will never offer exclusivity because they lack the technical structure to support it and have seemingly little interest in ever updating the website in any way. They still can't even get vector and JPG versions of an image on the same page. I have serious doubts that they have the capability to overhaul the site to the extent required to divide contributors into exclusive and non-exclusive groups, adjust payment schedules accordingly, tag images as exclusive, etc. That plus I doubt they would want to invest the money in it and I even wonder if they have the technical ability to do this sort of an upgrade at all.
I wouldn't hold my breath on an SS exclusive offering, and even if it did happen I doubt they will offer the $1+ per DL that a lot of people would require to make it financially feasible to go exclusive.
-
SS will never offer exclusivity because they lack the technical structure to support it and have seemingly little interest in ever updating the website in any way. They still can't even get vector and JPG versions of an image on the same page. I have serious doubts that they have the capability to overhaul the site to the extent required to divide contributors into exclusive and non-exclusive groups, adjust payment schedules accordingly, tag images as exclusive, etc. That plus I doubt they would want to invest the money in it and I even wonder if they have the technical ability to do this sort of an upgrade at all.
I wouldn't hold my breath on an SS exclusive offering, and even if it did happen I doubt they will offer the $1+ per DL that a lot of people would require to make it financially feasible to go exclusive.
Exclusive or non-exclusive by photo. When they fix the JPG / vector problem it would be a natural fit to add one more category at the same time. ;)
Asking for people to be agency exclusive wouldn't make sense for the SS program.
-
I really can't understand the whole point of exclusivity in microstock: the basic idea of royalty free is that the same pictures will sell over and over - who cares if a picture is exclusive to a site?
-
I really can't understand the whole point of exclusivity in microstock: the basic idea of royalty free is that the same pictures will sell over and over - who cares if a picture is exclusive to a site?
I don't see what's hard to understand. Having a large collection of exclusive images is what sets Istock apart from all the other microstock sites. It is their main selling point. 'You can't get what we have at other sites.' Surely you can understand why some photographers would want to be exclusive? Less time uploading, higher commission, better search placement, more opportunities, etc. What's so difficult to understand?
-
I really can't understand the whole point of exclusivity in microstock: the basic idea of royalty free is that the same pictures will sell over and over - who cares if a picture is exclusive to a site?
I don't see what's hard to understand. Having a large collection of exclusive images is what sets Istock apart from all the other microstock sites. It is their main selling point. 'You can't get what we have at other sites.' Surely you can understand why some photographers would want to be exclusive? Less time uploading, higher commission, better search placement, more opportunities, etc. What's so difficult to understand?
You do have some very valid points. Exclusivity can be a good selling point for sites. And can also be good for photographers for the reasons you said (although I think we can earn more if we take the hassle to upload to many sites).
What I meant is that buyers shouldn't care too much if a picture is exclusive to one site, or sold on more than one: in either cases, the picture is not unique for them as many other buyers are using the same picture.
-
You can only reliable sell what you can reliably control, so I'd be ok with all agencies having exclusive content, but thats where the exclusivity needs to end - at the content level. Photographer exclusivity isn't a very good idea from the producer perspective, that opens you up to abuse, keeping exclusivity at the content level mitigates the abuse risk.
-
Just speaking from my own limited experience. I don't feel I have much control as a non-exclusive. I know that I need all top 4 sites in order to make things work, it's not negotiable. Drop one of the 4 in protest, and kiss some good money goodbye, that's the reality. So, not as much freedom as I thought, being non-exclusive. This might be the case for a lot of non-exclusives counting on that money for survival. Instead of getting abused by one site, we have a chance to get abused by any of the 4. And, in case you haven't noticed, there has been quite a few non-exclusives complaining of being abused here, as of late. I don't here a lot of complaints coming from exclusives, maybe a few, but that's it. I also don't hear a lot of exclusives jumping ship. Isn't it a conflict of interests submitting the same material to competing sites. Personally, I would rather sell at the highest price, why should I want to support those sites that are selling for less.
Obviously, if you're not counting on the money, then you have freedom.
-
Even if the agency isn't "abusing you" - being exclusive on the photographer level is too restrictive. I hate the thought of not being able to sell at other agencies penetrating new markets because I was chained by a contract. There are also the questions about the long term viability of the agency your exclusive with as a photographer. Yes, if your holding tight at 4 agencies and one sinks, you could be in trouble, but at least you are free to find another opportunity, thats not so easy if you signed the Istock exclusive contract.
-
You can only reliable sell what you can reliably control, so I'd be ok with all agencies having exclusive content, but thats where the exclusivity needs to end - at the content level. Photographer exclusivity isn't a very good idea from the producer perspective, that opens you up to abuse, keeping exclusivity at the content level mitigates the abuse risk.
Not to mention that if an image is rejected, it becomes a "dead image" if you can't submit it elsewhere. I've had images rejected by one site that sell well on another. If an agency is really going to accept a photographer as exclusive, then they need to trust the photographer and allow more flexibility in accepting images. Otherwise, don't accept them as exclusive.
-
Even if the agency isn't "abusing you" - being exclusive on the photographer level is too restrictive. I hate the thought of not being able to sell at other agencies penetrating new markets because I was chained by a contract. There are also the questions about the long term viability of the agency your exclusive with as a photographer. Yes, if your holding tight at 4 agencies and one sinks, you could be in trouble, but at least you are free to find another opportunity, thats not so easy if you signed the Istock exclusive contract.
Where are these new markets? If I was looking for new markets it wouldn't be in Micro. All I see is bunch of sites with same material competing for the same customers. Not worried about one of the big 4 sinking, if it happened, customers would just buy from another site. What eats me up inside is: If I strongly disagree with the way a certain top 4 company runs their business, I can't leave because of the money. No one knows what it's going to be like down the road. Maybe it will just be a everything is "free" lets make money off ads, as some have mentioned. If that happens, we're all screwed. If Istock decides they want to stop taking care of their own, they will lose what makes them the best site out there. If I had to place a bet right now on which site would be the last one standing, it would be a no-brainer.
As far a "dead" images go, If it's a good image, just fix it, or upload another one from the same series.
Another thing, This talk about the future and "free images", make money from ads. It reminds me of Music and MP3.com. At the turn of the Century MP3.com was giving away free music and paying contributors by the download. I think I remember it being like 5 cents a download. It was possible to make money, I think at one point I was making a couple hundred bucks a day in downloads and others were making a lot more. Short lived though, The big 5 music companies didn't like this so much, so Universal bought out MP3.com. I wonder if the same thing will happen with the free image sites? I'm sure Getty, Corbis, etc...don't like the sound of this. Plus, you really must like money to be the flag bearer for this venture.