Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic - Why going exclusive with another agency is a bad idea:

swalls · Joined: 18 Jan 2005 Posts: 18

I would never bad mouth any stock agency in any forum. That said I would also never join exclusive to any stock agency unless they were managing me with a personal stake for both parties concerned. This usually is a 50% split. None the less I have seen it posted many times and I will repeat it here, if you have a supply of goods and you want to distribute them to the stores, why would you give them exclusively to one store unless they gave you a really good deal. The only way they will give you a really good deal of exclusivity is if you were famous and they wanted to capitilize on your fame and cut you in on it. Exclusive to one agency? I think not!

sainaniritu · Joined: 18 Jan 2005 Posts: 11

This is the most important point. It is almost impossible to make a living as a photographer from a single source of income. Yet most agencies try to make you sign a contract that will make you their sole representative - with no guarantees as to how much income they will earn you. It is not wise to put all your eggs in one basket.

Photography is just my hobby as is travelling around the world and I am very new to Shutterstock.com. Even in this short span of time, I am convinced Shutterstock is the pioneer in this field of stock photography.

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery.mhtml?id=2737

fspence · Joined: 05 Feb 2005 Posts: 60 Location: Midwest, USA

Hi there, everyone,

I'm new to Shutterstock and wanted to say hello. I just have a dozen or so photos thus far, but hoping to add some more, learn more about photography from the pros here and make new friends. I am learning that what makes a good stock photo can be different from what might make an interesting photo otherwise, ie - textures, wallpaper.

Take care.
Fara

mpalis · Joined: 02 Feb 2005 Posts: 185

I am also posting same pictures on various stock sites. Some of my pictures are selling very well on some sites and some other on other sites. So I believe it is much better to submit pictures on various stock agencies and not on a single on.

jfuller · Joined: 14 Feb 2005 Posts: 52 Location: Rhode Island

Wouldn't those photo's of M Jackson be considered news photographs anyway? They could be sold to newspapers as you probably know for lots of cash and no model release!
[quote="MIGRAINE"]I just started posting here and I know exclusivity is no good. I work in the television commercial production business and as a photojournalist and I know a photographer needs all the options possible.
I belong to two sites one is more of a online art gallery, that's fine, but sales are a joke. I've posted here less than a week and I've hade six downloads. No matter your business NEVER sign exclusive deals.
One suggestion for SHUTTERSTOCK, I have quite a few photojournalistic images I'd like to sell. Being news shots I don't have model releases for commercial sales, hard to get with the subject in a squad car on a drug bust. If there was a section of the site where buyers who need shots for editorial use could go, we could post shots with recognizeable faces without a model release. This would be great especially for shots like Michael Jackson going to court. I have some great ones of Mr. Jackson and his family in a shouting match with the local police.
All in all SHUTTERSTOCK is a top notch site. [/u][/b][/quote]

ScantyNebula · Joined: 19 Dec 2004 Posts: 84

I have to admit that after reaching silver status at istock I had seriously considered going exclusive ... but after a month of considering/pondering and researching - I decided it wasn't what I wanted. Shutterstock and the other stock sites have great potential - especially SS. If I had went exclusive - that would be it ... all my hard uploading work gone. And no more multiple income. And then sometime down the road I come back to SS and see that, WOW, these guys are making incredible sales. Too bad I didn't stick around and support them and be part of it all ... and I mean I've been part of most of the newer stock sites since the beginning, to just blow them all off for a 10% bonus would be ridiculous.

So for me, its a no to exclusivity now. Even though my sales are much higher on istock, I'm going to continue to support this and other sites. Because I CAN. :)

Not to mention - my images are sample images on the front page! Thanks guys, I just saw that a while ago! How awesome :)

showface · Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 130

Hang in there ScantyNebula, I think you made a wise choice, for the first time today I made more money here than at the other sites. Hopefully this isn't a one off occurence.

The combined income from your photos will make all the upload effort and time worth it. Great exposure on the front page too!!

I just want to add that I have no hard feelings towards the other sites but my decsion was just purely a personal one.

inspireme · Joined: 06 Nov 2004 Posts: 56 Location: England UK

I worked out that this month istock has earnt me 40% less that SS has. I have a few refferals though. Add the money I made from another stock site (judging by the familiar nicks i think most of you know where im talking about) going exclusive would have been a bad move.

Pete Bax · Joined: 30 Jan 2005 Posts: 1238 Location: Brighton England

My idea of hell is uploading 20 files to 5 different agencies, just done it what a bore and it as taken me hours. I don't type very well and my spelling is a bit suspect and I would far sooner do something creative with my time than this
If I could afford it I would get someone else to do it. If shutterstock offered me a exclusive deal I would think about it seriously say double the unexclusive rate. I don't know what you think, or weather ss can afford it,
needs thinking about; but if other agencies are going to do this I don't see ss have any alternative. Incedentally SS is the only agency I would sign such a deal with. I know I still have a lot to learn but thanks to the help of others I
am learning and I try to be original.

willem · Joined: 30 Nov 2004 Posts: 15 Location: denmark

First thing is to do the math : I could go exclusive and earn 25% more on each download (I have bronze status on the site I could go exclusive). Based on the downloads in January and February so far, I calculated I can still earn 20% more than that by not going exclusive.

And even it it would be break even, it is also important to look at growth expectations for the future.

For now, I see no reason to go exclusive.

Guest · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:53 pm

I agree that going exclusive anywhere may have its disadvantages; however that does not make shutterstock a good idea for any photographer.

Quite simply, your rights to your images are worth a whole lot more than Twenty Cents a pop, for all rights and usages.

I cannot believe that there is anyone who thinks that this is a good idea. Every single person who submits images to this site needs to step back and do some research on rights and usages.

Think about it, as this model presents itself, I could pick a photo off this site, subscribe and download this image, and use it everywhere, in National ad campaigns, on the side of a whole fleet of 747s, in an ad in every major magazine, and you have given away all these rights for a measly TWENTY CENTS!

Photographers, have some self-respect, educate yourself about the industry and what your images are worth.

For example, I am doing a 1-hour corporate event next week, providing 6 captioned photos for PR usage for distribution to local newspapers for $450. Those are the only rights that are included in my contract. If they choose to use one of these images for a national magazine campaign or for the corporate clients website, those usage rights will be negotiated separately, and believe me, I will be charging much more than TWENTY CENTS for additional usages.

Basically, every photographer that is submitting images to this site is giving away all their rights for what really amounts to much much less than what they deserve. Even a small advertising shot for a regional campaign in a circ 20K magazine should pay AT MINIMUM $100.

All submitters, do yourself a favor and read 'The Photographer's Market' and other such books and resources about the value of your images and the importance of defining rights and usages. Everyone makes out in this equation except for the photographer. 1000 usages for $200 is highway robbery, in my humble opinion.

While Mr. Oringer might not like my take on this, I do believe that I am within the terms of service. If not, kindly email me, and we can talk more. This offer is for any submitters who want to learn a bit more about rights and usages, as well as Mr. Oringer, if you'd like to chat some more.

gorillamonkeyapechimp@yahoo.com

EDUCATE YOURSELF, RESPECT YOURSELF, KNOW THE VALUE OF YOUR RIGHTS!

shutterstock · Joined: 22 Oct 2004 Posts: 1881 Location: New York, NY

My payout percentage is more than Getty and Corbis - how do you explain that?

this is from this weeks barrons:

----------------------
Because Getty's business model revolves around licensing its
"product," roughly 72 cents of every dollar of revenue falls to the
bottom line. The company's cost of sales refers primarily to the
percentage of revenue the company pays photographers -- generally 20%
to 40% -- each time an image is used. "We add revenue with no increase
in selling, general and administrative costs, because royalty rates
are fixed," says Klein, who runs the company with 1,800 employees,
down from 3,200 several years ago.
---------------------------

GorillaMonkeyChimpApeWhateverTheHellYouAre: You've created 4-5 aliases on this board and continue to pounce around. Why don't you reveal your real name instead of hiding behind a new alias each time (2 posts this time).. What will your name be next? I have your entire IP trail... show your face if you have an opinion.

Jon

StuartE · Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:21 pm

Well said Jon - I'd figured as much from the style of post...

And he doesn't seem to understand the industry, either - I'm very sure that anyone wanting an image for their fleet of 747's wants exclusivity, not royalty free for their advertising... Much like I don't think the next Microsoft release will feature a royalty free backdrop so everyone can use it, too... :-)

Cheers,
Stuart

flutterby · Joined: 02 Mar 2005 Posts: 69 Location: easthampton, ma

I love the idea of this site. I am new here, but I have been working with another photographer (stephen orsillo- who was oh so very kind in teaching me the trade) using shutterfly for years as our ally in this crazy world. Both shutterfly and shutterstock have been great with customer service, ease of use, and with options. I really respect these sites! The follow-thorugh is prompt and courteous and absolutely indispensible.

Bottom line is- this is a site that will become whatever you make of it. If you keep taking pictures and uploading them, that's great. If you don't put up many high-quality images, then it won't work for you.

My compliments to the chef....uh.... chief.... umm.... staff

-rebecca

(btw- I just put up my first few shots today, so please disregard the incredibly small gallery!)

FredS · Joined: 06 Jan 2005 Posts: 298 Location: Toronto, Canada

Hi Jon,

I think he or she's looking to upset you and your model business!
Don't come into his/her game!

Everybody here who submitted their pictures know what they do.
I'm an adult! I know other stock photo...

So, I will stay out of this kind of conversation. Like you said. He/she didn't give his/her real name so... doesn't matter!