pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Istock exclusive price rise again  (Read 24530 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ed

« Reply #25 on: May 02, 2012, 14:28 »
0
But surely the issue wouldn't be whether or not there have been price rises (though I think you are wrong about shutterstock)


There was a single image sale update on September 29th

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/updated-royalty-schedule

If I remember correctly, there was also a slight shift in subscription packages around that same time (maybe it was at the higher or lower level package).


« Reply #26 on: May 02, 2012, 14:35 »
0
What I think is happening is that iStock is tweaking their mid-tier pricing model once again with the intent of determining the acceptance threshold of the buyers. In doing so they further optimize, define and mature their product offering. I would assume Getty has significant statical analysis in place to monitor sales and download trends that reflect these pricing model changes.

This time of year is their window for such research - pre summer and no major holidays.

Numbers don't lie and Getty knows this. If the results of this change reveals a drop in sales, one can assume Getty will respond accordingly.

I am NOT a fan of Getty for many reasons, but give them credit for being a shrewd business and a leader in the industry.

The concept that they are radically and carelessly squeezing profits which would jeopardize the health of the business, is not one I readily accept.
My bold.

I'm really surprised that you hold  to this view. When even Sean and others are reporting year-on year sales down 30% and earnings down 20% then it makes me think that Istock are desperately chasing profits today at whatever the cost to the business tomorrow.

It's notable that FT has become aware that buyers are price-sensitive in that they are always devising new way of limiting how much their top-ranking contributors can price their own images. It seems obvious that they know that too many high-priced images damages their business.

SS are hardly slouches when it comes to doing business but they are not chasing short-term profits by increasing prices __ not even when they are lining themselves up for an IPO.

« Reply #27 on: May 02, 2012, 14:43 »
0
But surely the issue wouldn't be whether or not there have been price rises (though I think you are wrong about shutterstock)


There was a single image sale update on September 29th

http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/updated-royalty-schedule

If I remember correctly, there was also a slight shift in subscription packages around that same time (maybe it was at the higher or lower level package).


OK, but isn't that just tweaking at the edges? And it's seven months ago. It doesn't compare with two price rises in three months, or is it three rises?

From my experience, businesses understand annual reviews of prices and they understand that companies in businesses with volatile costs - such as transport - may have to make more frequent changes. Nobody I know would understand the argument that "we've just decided to give ourselves a $375,000,000 present and we've just realised last months price rise won't cover the loan, so we've got to raise prices again".  
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 14:48 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #28 on: May 02, 2012, 14:50 »
0
SS are hardly slouches when it comes to doing business but they are not chasing short-term profits by increasing prices __ not even when they are lining themselves up for an IPO.

Investors looking at the initial price are going to want to be able to see that there is lots of stuff to squeeze. That may be where they see their growth coming from.

« Reply #29 on: May 02, 2012, 14:58 »
0
SS are hardly slouches when it comes to doing business but they are not chasing short-term profits by increasing prices __ not even when they are lining themselves up for an IPO.

Investors looking at the initial price are going to want to be able to see that there is lots of stuff to squeeze. That may be where they see their growth coming from.

That's not how investors think at all. Fly-by-night speculators think like that and they don't usually last too long in the game. Investors look for long-term steady growth in a business so simple a fool could run it (because sooner or later one probably will). Read Warren Buffett if you want to know how successful investors think.

« Reply #30 on: May 02, 2012, 15:18 »
0
Lol

lisafx

« Reply #31 on: May 02, 2012, 17:01 »
0
So if the buyers leave iStock, where are they going to go?  DT where prices were just raised as well?  Shutterstock (didn't they raise prices a few months ago?).

This only has an effect on exclusives...and even they have images elsewhere (i.e. RM collections).

Let the buyers go the cheap route to someplace like Mostphotos.  ;)
It looks more like they want the customers to go to Thinkstock.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there Liz.  Looking at my March PP downloads vs. Istock downloads, it's 61% vs. 39% in Thinkstock's favor!   :o

wut

« Reply #32 on: May 02, 2012, 17:21 »
0
So if the buyers leave iStock, where are they going to go?  DT where prices were just raised as well?  Shutterstock (didn't they raise prices a few months ago?).

This only has an effect on exclusives...and even they have images elsewhere (i.e. RM collections).

Let the buyers go the cheap route to someplace like Mostphotos.  ;)
It looks more like they want the customers to go to Thinkstock.

I think you have hit the nail on the head there Liz.  Looking at my March PP downloads vs. Istock downloads, it's 61% vs. 39% in Thinkstock's favor!   :o

Why do you find that surprising, sub model is bound to bring in a few times more. If anything, your ratio is good. It's 27,5% vs 72,5% in TS's favour in my case

lisafx

« Reply #33 on: May 02, 2012, 17:35 »
0

Why do you find that surprising, sub model is bound to bring in a few times more. If anything, your ratio is good. It's 27,5% vs 72,5% in TS's favour in my case

I don't "find that surprising".  My emoticon wasn't meant to note that I was surprised that there was a larger number of subs, just that it was a very large difference (more than 60/40).  

And the reason that's concerning to me is that, unlike you, I was around when ALL those sales would have been at Istock, and I would have made thousands of dollars more on them at Istock than I did on TS.  

I see no real overall increase in sales, if I take the two numbers together, to indicate that I am getting more downloads in total.  Just a shifting of the numbers from Istock to TS, where I make considerably less money.  Make sense now?  

wut

« Reply #34 on: May 02, 2012, 18:05 »
0
I does. Because you explained the emoticon ;D . And I had in mind what you wrote in the 2nd paragraph, I just didn't mention it, because it's only logical (at least to me) that you'd worry about it because of that and that you view the ratio differently then most of us

lisafx

« Reply #35 on: May 02, 2012, 18:12 »
0
I does. Because you explained the emoticon ;D . And I had in mind what you wrote in the 2nd paragraph, I just didn't mention it, because it's only logical (at least to me) that you'd worry about it because of that and that you view the ratio differently then most of us

Yeah, it was great being around in the glory days, but only serves to remind how much things have changed now ;)

« Reply #36 on: May 02, 2012, 23:04 »
0
What I think is happening is that iStock is tweaking their mid-tier pricing model once again with the intent of determining the acceptance threshold of the buyers. In doing so they further optimize, define and mature their product offering. I would assume Getty has significant statical analysis in place to monitor sales and download trends that reflect these pricing model changes.

This time of year is their window for such research - pre summer and no major holidays.

Numbers don't lie and Getty knows this. If the results of this change reveals a drop in sales, one can assume Getty will respond accordingly.

I am NOT a fan of Getty for many reasons, but give them credit for being a shrewd business and a leader in the industry.

The concept that they are radically and carelessly squeezing profits which would jeopardize the health of the business, is not one I readily accept.
My bold.

I'm really surprised that you hold  to this view. When even Sean and others are reporting year-on year sales down 30% and earnings down 20% then it makes me think that Istock are desperately chasing profits today at whatever the cost to the business tomorrow.

It's notable that FT has become aware that buyers are price-sensitive in that they are always devising new way of limiting how much their top-ranking contributors can price their own images. It seems obvious that they know that too many high-priced images damages their business.

SS are hardly slouches when it comes to doing business but they are not chasing short-term profits by increasing prices __ not even when they are lining themselves up for an IPO.

Not all buyers are that price sensitive. The Getty strategy is to pitch products like TS and Photos.com at the buyers which aren't going to pay the higher prices & to market IS at a market which isn't as price-sensitive, and partly on the basis that you can't get the images anywhere else.

At the moment we're seeing lots of shifts in the best match sort order. It looks like they're trying to work out what formula extracts the maximum return. In the short term, the gains & losses of sales will be more from these changes than buyers coming or going. 

Fotolia has always been aggressive on price, so its natural that along the way they've picked up many of the buyers that are most price sensitive.

« Reply #37 on: May 03, 2012, 05:49 »
0
Not all buyers are that price sensitive. The Getty strategy is to pitch products like TS and Photos.com at the buyers which aren't going to pay the higher prices & to market IS at a market which isn't as price-sensitive, and partly on the basis that you can't get the images anywhere else.

At the moment we're seeing lots of shifts in the best match sort order. It looks like they're trying to work out what formula extracts the maximum return. In the short term, the gains & losses of sales will be more from these changes than buyers coming or going. 

Fotolia has always been aggressive on price, so its natural that along the way they've picked up many of the buyers that are most price sensitive.


I don't think Getty are anything like as clever as you give them credit for. Don't forget that they screwed up their business, when they were a public company, to the point that the shareholders were grateful to sell out cheap to H&F.

Have you read S&P's latest report on Getty (thanks to JoAnne) here?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/idUSWNA250820120314

S&P give Getty a credit rating of BB- which places them in the middle between the terms 'Non-investment grade speculative' and 'Highly speculative'. In other words they don't have much faith in the way the business is being run or it's prospects.

Btw, FT don't appear to be doing terribly well either, judging by the reports on here and their own actions. The winner out of all these price increases and commission cuts is actually Shutterstock __ by a country mile.

lagereek

« Reply #38 on: May 03, 2012, 11:11 »
0
They dont care one bit.

« Reply #39 on: June 12, 2012, 08:05 »
0
And yet ANOTHER E+ increase today -- an E+ is now triple (or slightly more for some sizes) that of a non-E+.  Wasn't the last one just six weeks or so ago?  This has to be the fourth one this year, IIRC.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #40 on: June 12, 2012, 08:19 »
0
And yet ANOTHER E+ increase today -- an E+ is now triple (or slightly more for some sizes) that of a non-E+.  Wasn't the last one just six weeks or so ago?  This has to be the fourth one this year, IIRC.
How far can they push it? Even if someone has unique models, there will be various cut-off ponts where a buyer will 'satisfice' with a cheaper photo, whether it's an E or an indie.
I'm glad I didn't go mad on promoting pics to E+ as some people seem to have done.
Still wish exlusives could choose to demote certain of our pics to be on a par with indie prices.

« Reply #41 on: June 12, 2012, 08:36 »
0
please take a look to this buyers post

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=1

in the last 6 month the price was changed at least 3 times


... yep, make that 4

wut

« Reply #42 on: June 12, 2012, 09:39 »
0
Great! Still hoping for indie price increase and P+ too. I'd easily sell some (a handful) of my files at double prices at the same pace (or not much lower, but earnings would increase significantly)

« Reply #43 on: June 12, 2012, 11:19 »
0
please take a look to this buyers post

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=1

in the last 6 month the price was changed at least 3 times


... yep, make that 4


it would be so cool if they deal with bugs as fast as they raise prices :D

wut

« Reply #44 on: June 12, 2012, 11:29 »
0
What bugs?

« Reply #45 on: June 12, 2012, 11:32 »
0
What bugs?

dont know when was the last one but I believe there were a few in the past no? we forget quite fast true..

wut

« Reply #46 on: June 12, 2012, 11:45 »
0
I can't remember one since last summer...

« Reply #47 on: June 12, 2012, 11:50 »
0
I can't remember one since last summer...


http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/bug-images-not-showing-on-istock/
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-new-list-of-bugs/

and I remember the RC bug too when they went to 0, also I believe we dont need to talk about the migration to thinkstock

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #48 on: June 12, 2012, 12:04 »
0
What bugs?

dont know when was the last one but I believe there were a few in the past no? we forget quite fast true..

List of old, unfixed bugs carried forward into June:
Contributor preference to show location and member name as opposed to real name is being reset for some contributors, along with adult filter preference. See here for example. 31Mar12

Royalties & stats not adding up on the E+ page. E+ royalty numbers listed on the E+ page are incorrect. For example, sjlocke has an image with 500+ E+ downloads, supposedly, for an E+ total royalty of $26.00 . Also, there are no dates for last exclusive+ download. Clicking on sales number does not link to anything also. KJ

The downloads numbers, royalties and other stats displayed may vary according to which page you check them e.g. the my_uploads page may differ from the portfolio page, which may differ from the file's close up page etc. Example here

Subscription Royalties & delayed royalties showing errors in download figures e.g. this one showing 65535 delayed royalties. KJ

RSS feed links missing .php - leading to hanging pages - details here KJ

The zoom function appears broken for older Illustrations - which appear like this KJ

Some contributors unable to add images to E+ collections examples here , here and here. Further details of E+ page issues here

Several users reporting they are having to sign in many times each day. KJ

Site mails and forum posts being truncated - possibly a WYSIWYG issue - e.g. this post KJ

Resubmitted images are losing their Model Releases - long running issue. KJ

Non Latin alphabet characters causing problems in caption and image description boxes, so any punctuation marks such as apostrophes, ampersands & umlauts etc can cause rest of text to be truncated. e.g. here and a little more info here. Referral mail personal message field also can't handle thesel characters and on the received mail it shows a "?" instead. Ref# KJ-35

Forum subscribe/unsubscribe - These two options are backwards.Ref# PH-9

Moo cards - not able to upload files to order cards. Ref #JG-16

wut

« Reply #49 on: June 12, 2012, 12:12 »
0
I can't remember one since last summer...


http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/bug-images-not-showing-on-istock/
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-new-list-of-bugs/

and I remember the RC bug too when they went to 0, also I believe we dont need to talk about the migration to thinkstock


The first thread is from May, but I did forget about RC not showing. Still nothing that would affect our earnings and  RCs really aren't important in the first month of the year, the targets aren't even set yet (that's an issue for me, not those small bugs). But those bugs are nothing compared to SS's (images not searchable and shown in our ports, not to mention absurd rejections)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4842 Views
Last post March 12, 2009, 10:37
by MatHayward
16 Replies
6793 Views
Last post August 02, 2011, 13:22
by click_click
13 Replies
6111 Views
Last post April 15, 2014, 10:17
by Morphart
5 Replies
4005 Views
Last post April 05, 2019, 11:09
by Uncle Pete
9 Replies
3558 Views
Last post September 09, 2022, 13:49
by Justanotherphotographer

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors