MicrostockGroup

Today someone bought one of my landscape images on Istock at XS size netting me 22c commission. It was the first sale of that image in the 4 months it had been on-line. The subject was a coastal geological feature, images of which tend to be relatively high in supply and low in demand.

Less than an hour later the same image was bought on Fotolia at maximum XXL size which generated about $4 for me.

If the buyer had bought the XXL image on IS it would have cost them 20 credits or about $30. Over on FT the sale cost the buyer about $12, a worthwhile saving for the few seconds it would have taken them to find it if they first spotted it on IS.

Normally I would put such things down to coincidence but in this case, because of the low-selling nature of the image, the timing of the two sales and the sizes bought from each agency it does make me think otherwise. It appears that the buyer may be doing the initial searches on IS, to get the best selection, then buying XS images for comping purposes and, when they've made their choices, purchasing the full-size images from the most cost-effective source.

It would actually have been slightly cheaper for them to have bought it at DT, where the image has never sold, and a bit more expensive at StockXpert.

From the contributor's point of view as I've said I got $4 from the sale at FT but if they'd bought it at IS (as a non-exclusive) I'd have got about $6. Of course if I had been exclusive then I'd have made about $15 for that sale. Makes you think doesn't it?

Any thoughts?

I think most times we wouldn't be aware of it unless it was both a relatively obscure image and was also first bought at comping size on IS.

I don't know how many buyers are aware yet of sites such as Spiderpic which is a search and price comparison port.
http://www.spiderpic.com/
As more do become aware of this site I suspect it might change some pricing strategies. If you haven't already read this on Fast Media, it's worth a look.
http://www.fastmediamagazine.com/?p=3471

I doubt that Spiderpic will be a significant factor. I'm sure that regular buyers are more than savvy enough to work out the rough prices for different image sizes at the various agencies and what each agency can offer. The size of credit packages purchased can also make a big difference to prices and it wouldn't be practical to pay for credits at many different agencies.

If I were a buyer wanting to save money I'd look at IS first and then buy any non-exclusive content from one or two other agencies __ probably FT and/or StockXpert. I suspect that prices at DT, with all the level increments, are too unpredictable to be attractive to price-sensitive buyers.

Yea it look like it, comps are free. I also think it was one of those coincidence, or a not really experienced designer. I will always think that the majority of designers want to browse the best collection and find the right images quick. There is probably some random people who just look for printing images at the best value. But again like Sharply said, comps are free

Was speaking to a designer recently who works in an office where they have both a SS subscription and can buy additional images on DT when they can't find what they're looking for on SS.

Basically if its on both it will be a subs download in SS, if not its a credit download on DT.

I suspect that designers may sign up to a small number of different options, but I doubt many would bother maintaining accounts at a whole array of sites. To keep track of this would just become a nightmare.   

You have to remember that there is more to keep track of than just prices - each site has its own license conditions etc that need to be recorded.

i would support your thesis, gostwyk, just by the # of private lightboxes i have with my portfolio at is that do not have sales, but are purchased through subscription sales at other agencies. it's rare to get a private lightbox for a photo that isn't purchased elsewhere at some point.

That's true. I just did the test and it seem to be a version saved at approximatively quality 6 in photoshop, plus watemarked. I can't understand any designer using a comp instead of right clicking and saving the thumbnail as it is

I think going exclusive or, at least, deleting folders in the sites where photos are way cheaper and way less profitable is the logical move.

Yep.  Cutting right to the chase Louates, as always.   
I guess I'm missing the point of this entire thread.  Is it suggesting going exclusive?

I think a site like spiderpic might become a force if buyers use it as a universal stock image search tool. It is clean and simple and finds pics first and then compares prices. I acknowledge that some buyers are loyal to one site or the other, perhaps because that is where they have an account or they like the interface, but new buyers might like to go to one site to search for an image. Could save time. Those kinds of buyers might be influenced by the prices they see on a spiderpic type site after they find the image they want to buy. It is in beta so it could be a force in the future. Or not, but it is something that should be watched.

If it does become a factor, then those stockers with images on multiple sites will have to make their own decisions based on their sales results. No one is saying become exclusive. Yet.

That's very interesting info and kind of firm proof that some indeed do...

I've seen the same with some of my exclusive pictures. So it could just be someone who didn't put it in a lightbox, but instead made a note of the name.