Author Topic: Possible contributor exclusivity after IPO; how I'd imagine it (Read 10300 times)

wut · « **on:** May 26, 2012, 13:59 »

I'm just thinking what would exclusive rates be if SS indeed offered exclusivity after the IPO and under the new ownership. If the rates/royalty % would increase at a similar rate as it does at IS, we'd be getting something like:

Non Excl Excl

subs 25-38c 44-63c
ODs 20-30% 35-50%
EL 28$ 50$

And so on for SODs, sensitive licences, special SODs etc. This just reminds me of everyone saying SS is so successful because they keep it simple. Do all the new licences SODs, special SODs, sensitive licences still sound simple to you? They don't yet SS is still up, also up for most contributors. They've tested the waters with a bunch of new licences, there were no trouble because of them, in fact all contributors (I haven't read a negative opinion on them so far) embraced them with both arms and it seems the buyers are starting to dig them too. So after the successful launch of new products, they could introduce exclusivity and higher priced collection. Subs could be priced like:

regular (non-exclusive): 1 "cr" (as in 1 DL deducted from a 25/day package)
exclusive: 2
Top sheat collection: 5

And the same ratio would be applied to all the other ways of licencing except ELs (ODs, SODs etc)

That being said, I'd jump into exclusivity in a heartbeat.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 26, 2012, 14:15 »

we keep on hearing that IS exclusives get at least 3x indies, that said you are only making SS exclusivity 1.65x looking at subs, 1.69x at OD and 1.78x at EL

the rest would come from more exposure?

p.s: sub counting as 2 sales, would be 12.5 downloads... so double what I am saying..

wut · « **Reply #2 on:** May 26, 2012, 14:20 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 26, 2012, 14:15

we keep on hearing that IS exclusives get at least 3x indies, that said you are only making SS exclusivity 1.65x looking at subs, 1.69x at OD and 1.78x at EL

the rest would come from more exposure?

p.s: sub counting as 2 sales, would be 12.5 downloads... so double what I am saying..

I don't know how you're doing your math, but it's 15-20% vs 25-45% at IS. They also make more from more exposure as you said, actually were asking. So that's where i was coming from, as well as adding a higher priced collection. And I don't think it really matters if you can't get a round number of sales buying only exclusive content; it's just the same way with cr packs at IS.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #3 on:** May 26, 2012, 14:26 »

Quote from: wut on May 26, 2012, 14:20

Quote from: luissantos84 on May 26, 2012, 14:15
we keep on hearing that IS exclusives get at least 3x indies, that said you are only making SS exclusivity 1.65x looking at subs, 1.69x at OD and 1.78x at EL

the rest would come from more exposure?

p.s: sub counting as 2 sales, would be 12.5 downloads... so double what I am saying..

I don't know how you're doing your math, but it's 15-20% vs 25-45% at IS. They also make more from more exposure as you said, actually were asking. So that's where i was coming from, as well as adding a higher priced collection. And I don't think it really matters if you can't get a round number of sales buying only exclusive content; it's just the same way with cr packs at IS.

yep, basically my maths were: 63 cents / 38 cents, 4.75$ / 2.85$ and 50$ / 28$

exclusive would be 126 cents (2x)

for sure there would be an increase in price all around and perhaps a cut in all "indies" and exclusives

wut · « **Reply #4 on:** May 26, 2012, 17:24 »

Have you ever thought of how many images would the competition loose due to the announcement of SS's exclusivity? Millions. They'd really hurt competition, especially IS, who'd loose a great portion (most?) of their non-exclusive content. And by that a lot of price aware buyers. Does anyone know what's the ratio between exclusive and non exclusive content (not contributors)? And they'd kill most of the annoying little race to the bottom agencies. Consequently prices would go up also because of that. And we'd all be earning more. Those being exclusive, wouldn't have to bother with finding a way to "please" so many agencies (it really is tiresome for me, at times)

qwerty · « **Reply #5 on:** May 26, 2012, 17:35 »

I wouldn't go exclusive with SS. They normally account for 25% of my monthly earnings. I doubt that I would earn 4 times as much with any exclusivity deal.

Not to mention the all the eggs in one basket problem.

I don't trust anybody in this game enough to go exclusive.

wut · « **Reply #6 on:** May 26, 2012, 18:02 »

I can understand what you're saying. However they bring me 50% on average. So in the sorst case scenario, I'd make the same (only doubling my earnings there), but I' only have to deal with 1 agency, 1 set of standards.

sharpshot · « **Reply #7 on:** May 26, 2012, 18:08 »

SS has always been my highest earnings site but total exclusivity for RF doesn't appeal to me. It would have to be an amazing deal to get my interest. It would take a lot of time to remove my portfolio from all the sites I use. Then there's the risk that SS could be sold, like istock was.

Aren't they going to do the sensible thing and have image exclusivity instead of contributor exclusivity? If they go for contributor exclusivity, it could end up a choice between SS and istock. I like selling with several different sites and don't want to be given that limited choice. I would be so shocked if they went for total exclusivity, it just doesn't make sense now.

wut · « **Reply #8 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. So it doesn' t really matter whether is image or contributor exclusivity, you'll basically have the same amount of work to do. Same goes for all eggs in one basket. And no it's not just about you sharpshot, but so many of you cheering for image exclusivity. And there's really no difference since most would put 80%+ of their stuff in anyway.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #9 on:** May 26, 2012, 19:13 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 26, 2012, 18:08

SS has always been my highest earnings site but total exclusivity for RF doesn't appeal to me. It would have to be an amazing deal to get my interest. It would take a lot of time to remove my portfolio from all the sites I use. Then there's the risk that SS could be sold, like istock was.

Aren't they going to do the sensible thing and have image exclusivity instead of contributor exclusivity? If they go for contributor exclusivity, it could end up a choice between SS and istock. I like selling with several different sites and don't want to be given that limited choice. I would be so shocked if they went for total exclusivity, it just doesn't make sense now.

bigger portfolios are always hard to deal but in the end the return on agencies is more important, that said I wouldn´t go exclusive unless it is a really nice deal once I have "wasted" much time on many agencies some taking months to get payouts, it is all a question of numbers but being dependent on an agency doesn´t attract me..

sharpshot · « **Reply #10 on:** May 27, 2012, 02:24 »

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. So it doesn' t really matter whether is image or contributor exclusivity, you'll basically have the same amount of work to do. Same goes for all eggs in one basket. And no it's not just about you sharpshot, but so many of you cheering for image exclusivity. And there's really no difference since most would put 80%+ of their stuff in anyway.

It's not just about you either. Until I see the deal, I have no idea what percentage of my portfolio would be going exclusive to SS. 10% might be too high. Don't forget, a lot of people do very well selling RF with the higher priced traditional sites. Lots of the bigger portfolios aren't going to be as interested in total exclusivity. Will Yuri dump his own site that he's just spent a fortune on to go totally exclusive with SS? It's easy for part timers with small portfolios only on a few sites but SS will know that they don't make most of their money. So I think they will do the sensible thing and have individual images exclusivity. Perhaps they will have both options and we will all be happy.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #11 on:** May 27, 2012, 03:07 »

Cloudcuckooland.

wut · « **Reply #12 on:** May 27, 2012, 04:20 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 27, 2012, 02:24

Perhaps they will have both options and we will all be happy.

Like FT. That would be best.

djpadavona · « **Reply #13 on:** May 27, 2012, 09:29 »

SS has always treated me well, and I earn over 45% of my returns from SS alone each month. However contributor relations may change significantly once the company has to answer to shareholders about growth every quarter. I would not consider exclusivity, if it was offered, until at least a year after the IPO to assess if there had been any changes with commission percentages, etc.

wut · « **Reply #14 on:** May 27, 2012, 09:36 »

Quote from: djpadavona on May 27, 2012, 09:29

SS has always treated me well, and I earn over 45% of my returns from SS alone each month. However contributor relations may change significantly once the company has to answer to shareholders about growth every quarter. I would not consider exclusivity, if it was offered, until at least a year after the IPO to assess if there had been any changes with commission percentages, etc.

While I'd be earning a lot of extra dough and walk around with fat pockets because of cautious ppl.

I think one has to take some risk in this business, in fact when it comes to business generally

djpadavona · « **Reply #15 on:** May 27, 2012, 11:27 »

Quote from: wut on May 27, 2012, 09:36

Quote from: djpadavona on May 27, 2012, 09:29
SS has always treated me well, and I earn over 45% of my returns from SS alone each month. However contributor relations may change significantly once the company has to answer to shareholders about growth every quarter. I would not consider exclusivity, if it was offered, until at least a year after the IPO to assess if there had been any changes with commission percentages, etc.

While I'd be earning a lot of extra dough and walk around with fat pockets because of cautious ppl. I think one has to take some risk in this business, in fact when it comes to business generally

Yes, I took a similar risk at IS. Then September 2011 happened.

But I agree with you. Almost any worthwhile investment requires you to take a risk which others are not willing to take.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #16 on:** May 27, 2012, 13:50 »

Quote from: wut on May 27, 2012, 04:20

Quote from: sharpshot on May 27, 2012, 02:24
Perhaps they will have both options and we will all be happy.

Like FT. That would be best.

Nothing could be worse than "like FT"

wut · « **Reply #17 on:** May 27, 2012, 13:57 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 27, 2012, 13:50

Quote from: wut on May 27, 2012, 04:20
Quote from: sharpshot on May 27, 2012, 02:24
Perhaps they will have both options and we will all be happy.

Like FT. That would be best.

Nothing could be worse than "like FT"

DT

bunhill · « **Reply #18 on:** May 27, 2012, 14:03 »

As most people are probably aware, iStockphoto is planning to move E+ files to the main Getty site. If that works as well as the Vetta transfer then it is likely to mean considerable extra income for many contributors. Perhaps they will do the same with Photo+ at some point. In which case I would guess that would be quite a thing for many contributors.

This SS exclusivity thing is pure speculation too. So my totally speculative guess is that if it were to happen it would be the work of a small number of top drawer factory style contributors effectively under contract for new work. That might genuinely represent a signature premium collection.

wut · « **Reply #19 on:** May 27, 2012, 14:11 »

Quote from: bhr on May 27, 2012, 14:03

As most people are probably aware, iStockphoto is planning to move E+ files to the main Getty site. If that works as well as the Vetta transfer then it is likely to mean considerable extra income for many contributors. Perhaps they will do the same with Photo+ at some point. In which case I would guess that would be quite a thing for many contributors.

This SS exclusivity thing is pure speculation. So my totally speculative guess is that if it were to happens it would be the work of a small number of top drawer factory style contributors effectively under contract for new work. That might genuinely represent a signature premium collection.

Can you elaborate on that? Why wouldn't it be the same as on IS (with A/V)?

And yes, E+ selling on Getty sure sounds nice and lucrative

sam100 · « **Reply #20 on:** May 27, 2012, 14:27 »

This is just a hallucination .. isn't it.?.

Patrick.................................? am I Patrick...?............

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #21 on:** May 27, 2012, 14:34 »

Quote from: wut on May 27, 2012, 13:57

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 27, 2012, 13:50
Quote from: wut on May 27, 2012, 04:20
Quote from: sharpshot on May 27, 2012, 02:24
Perhaps they will have both options and we will all be happy.

Like FT. That would be best.

Nothing could be worse than "like FT"

DT

Why? I've never seen anything really dodgy from DT.

borg · « **Reply #22 on:** May 27, 2012, 14:37 »

I don't see any reason what can be benefit of exclusivity for mainly subscription site... Does it is mean more money to exclusive contributor, less in agency pocket...?
Also, from customer's point of you, there is no difference if image is from ex. or non-ex. ,in microstock world.

Every exclusivity is always threat for us non-ex. contributors...
Because every agency probably would prefer to reduce our part of earnings, not their, to reward the exclusivity .....

wut · « **Reply #23 on:** May 27, 2012, 14:39 »

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

Quote from: wut on May 27, 2012, 13:57
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 27, 2012, 13:50
Quote from: wut on May 27, 2012, 04:20
Quote from: sharpshot on May 27, 2012, 02:24
Perhaps they will have both options and we will all be happy.

Like FT. That would be best.

Nothing could be worse than "like FT"

DT

Why? I've never seen anything really dodgy from DT.

They've both cut commissions twice and I make more at DT. That being said, what I originally meant (as you know anyway) is that I like FT's approach to exclusivity, they give you a choice (contrary go every other agency)

Microstock Posts · « **Reply #24 on:** May 27, 2012, 14:59 »

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

Quote from: wut on May 27, 2012, 13:57
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 27, 2012, 13:50
Quote from: wut on May 27, 2012, 04:20
Quote from: sharpshot on May 27, 2012, 02:24
Perhaps they will have both options and we will all be happy.

Like FT. That would be best.

Nothing could be worse than "like FT"

DT

Why? I've never seen anything really dodgy from DT.

Contributors pay in part towards other contributors referral money. Something which apparently DT were supposed to have implemented a while back, but only got round to doing recently.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Possible contributor exclusivity after IPO; how I'd imagine it (Read 10300 times)

wut

luissantos84

wut

luissantos84

wut

qwerty

wut

sharpshot

wut

luissantos84

sharpshot

BaldricksTrousers

wut

djpadavona

wut

djpadavona

BaldricksTrousers

wut

bunhill

wut

sam100

BaldricksTrousers

borg

wut

Microstock Posts

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors