Author Topic: Possible contributor exclusivity after IPO; how I'd imagine it (Read 10297 times)

wut · « **Reply #25 on:** May 29, 2012, 10:05 »

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.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #26 on:** May 29, 2012, 10:11 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 27, 2012, 14:34

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).

wut · « **Reply #27 on:** May 29, 2012, 10:14 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on May 29, 2012, 10:11

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 27, 2012, 14:34
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)

wut · « **Reply #28 on:** May 29, 2012, 10:29 »

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!

cthoman · « **Reply #29 on:** May 29, 2012, 10:48 »

Quote from: wut on May 29, 2012, 10:29

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.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #30 on:** May 29, 2012, 10:48 »

Quote from: wut on May 26, 2012, 19:07

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.

wut · « **Reply #31 on:** May 29, 2012, 11:10 »

Quote from: cthoman on May 29, 2012, 10:48

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

cthoman · « **Reply #32 on:** May 29, 2012, 11:53 »

Quote from: wut on May 29, 2012, 11:10

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.

pancaketom · « **Reply #33 on:** May 29, 2012, 12:07 »

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.

wut · « **Reply #34 on:** May 29, 2012, 14:13 »

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

pancaketom · « **Reply #35 on:** May 29, 2012, 15:12 »

Quote from: wut on May 29, 2012, 14:13

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.

wut · « **Reply #36 on:** May 29, 2012, 15:21 »

Quote from: pancaketom on May 29, 2012, 15:12

Quote from: wut on May 29, 2012, 14:13
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

Lagereek · « **Reply #37 on:** May 29, 2012, 15:38 »

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.

wut · « **Reply #38 on:** May 29, 2012, 15:47 »

Quote from: Lagereek on May 29, 2012, 15:38

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.

Lagereek · « **Reply #39 on:** May 29, 2012, 16:06 »

Quote from: wut on May 29, 2012, 15:47

Quote from: Lagereek on May 29, 2012, 15:38
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.

nicku · « **Reply #40 on:** May 30, 2012, 00:22 »

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).

sharpshot · « **Reply #41 on:** May 30, 2012, 00:56 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Possible contributor exclusivity after IPO; how I'd imagine it (Read 10297 times)

wut

traveler1116

wut

wut

cthoman

velocicarpo

wut

cthoman

pancaketom

wut

pancaketom

wut

Lagereek

wut

Lagereek

nicku

sharpshot

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors