Hi all,

with the coming merger, there is a lot more interest in going exclusive with istock again.

For me it is too late, I am active on too many places.

But I think a lot of newbies might find it interesting.

It used to be really simple, make sure you have no files elsewhere, click go exclusive for media type...xyz...and you were an istock exclusive.

Now it looks like they are mostly looking for macrostock lifestyle producers.

https://contributors.gettyimages.com/community/istock-exclusivity

The advantage: the people that are now exclusive, are in a protected walled garden. There will be no dramatic influx of competition.

Which is very good for them.

But it also means they are no longer trying to have a large exclusive collection. Only a small high quality collection.

Newbies will have to decide pretty early, which route they want to go.

What do you think?

What has changed is that the creators cannot simply go exclusive with one click.

That is a drastic "words on a website" change.

There are still plenty of people who make a full time living as istock exclusives.

Especially with a merger of getty, istock, shutterstock, pond5, envato and others going exclusive can make a lot more sense.

If they offer a unified upload system, then you just send to istock and they distribute at much higher prices, access to the getty macro collections and higher royalties.

You are making the mistake of ignoring reality.

The "multitude of agencies" is over.

It is now either adobe or getty, with a few smaller places like alamy, deposit..but they do not my themselves produce a full time income.

The exclusives make more than double what an indie makes,  often it is even triple the revenue, the base price is so much higher.

So after a merger, it might be a lot more lucrative to go exclusive with istock for photos.

I'm photo exclusive with iStock, have been for best part of 20 years now and it still works well for me, just about.

I sell many times more videos on iStock / Getty than Adobe / Shutterstock / Pond5 combined, but the prices are so low for video on iStock that I don't think exclusivity would work. I wish they would put video prices up to make it viable.

It's not your choice to become exclusive at istock. You can apply but the choice is theirs. And they are not so easy in accepting your application.
(For anyone thinking about it an deleting their work at other agencies before making the move )

So are we assuming that after the merger, iStock exclusive content will be available on Shutterstock at higher prices?....so what will "exclusive" then mean if the content is available on so many outlets? Exclusive always seemed like a marketing ploy to me....I understand that it "works", but if  a given "exclusive" asset has sold 1000 times, what exactly is "exclusive" about it from the customers point of view when it is being used in many places by many customers?

There are customers who pay to see �everything�. Agencies have internal search options to include content from all their partners or companies they own.

This how Shutterstock customers also buy exclusive pond5 content.

I don�t know how it works in detail, but there will be customers paying to be able to see all istock, all getty, all shutterstock, all p5 exclusive etc�

So without merging the companies, they can all upsell higher licensing plans with access to more files, especially exclusive files.

Who pays for an exclusive file?

Usually they have less sales, then indie content, it is a cheaper way than traditional rights managed.

On istock the quality is also often very good, lots of high quality lifestyle being produced by exclusives.

Also getty puts out briefs and producers can try to fill that. An indirect work for hire system that at the same time fills gaps in the overall collection.

Shutterstock and getty are no longer competing against each other, so hopefully prices can rise.

Adobe has the balance of having a very large ai collection.

Exclusive content at higher prices keeps selling, so obviously there is a market for it.

Not every customer wants ultracheap.

I have sold the most mundane smartphone images for sometimes really high prices, especially when the content on eyeem was exclusive.

Based on my image sales I would seriously consider Image Exclusivity with them, but I doubt they would accept me because I don't "shoot lifestyle". I would not go back to video exclusivity with them as their video RPD is ridiculously low.

That is a good point. Will producers get to ask them if they will be accepted, before they start deleting files?

But overall I think it is a good solution. I was wondering how the exclusives will fare and if maybe their royalties will be lowered if there is a large influx of new exclusives.

If too many people are exclusive the fine balance of higher royalties and prices versus the indies does not work.

Where are you finding all of this about exclusive or what's going to happen to SS and how everything will change. Do you have an inside connection or is this all made up from imagination. Why should they raise our pay when they have the only agency, and own everything.

when ss and getty merge they are no longer competing with each other. Only Adobe is left as a competition and adobe keeps raising prices for their products.

So why should getty now lower prices after the merger?

Getty and SS also face competition from Artlist, Storyblocks, and other subscription agencies, whose portfolios continue to grow larger and more diverse.

In this competitive landscape, raising prices may not be the best decision for them, although I sincerely hope they do!

artlist and storyblocks are tiny.

The merged business has way more than over 1 billion files and will have by far the largest editorial volume as well.

They would be as dangerous as depositphotos or dreamstime.

Also they own envato, if someone wants ultracheap subs they can offer that.

They might even prop it up with more content to make it more attractive.

I don't think the merger will affect Adobe because they sell from within photoshop, but the other tiny agencies - how will they survive against the new gorilla?

It will also make it difficult to start new agencies, unless it is highly specialized and with expensive content.

Not quite so, storyblocks accepts only authors who create content that buyers need. Moreover, storyblocks constantly deletes those videos that are not in demand. Thus, the storyblocks library contains only the videos that buyers need. Buyers can find what they need there easier and faster.
There is also an editorial on storyblocks.

[/quote]
Not quite so, storyblocks accepts only authors who create content that buyers need. Moreover, storyblocks constantly deletes those videos that are not in demand. Thus, the storyblocks library contains only the videos that buyers need. Buyers can find what they need there easier and faster.
There is also an editorial on storyblocks.
[/quote]

i think storyblocks has a good concept, so maybe they will be around for a while.

But what if getty offers to buy them like SS bought pond5 or envato? Would the owners resist a 250 million dollar offer?

And what if getty starts offering highly selected, edited collections for a very cheap price? What is going to stop them from doing the same?

They will have a gigantic volume to choose from, the merged company will have a lot more options.

I hope smaller places survive, but on that I am not so optimistic.