Author Topic: Photo+ - new iStockphoto collection for non exclusives (Read 56375 times)

wiser · « **Reply #125 on:** May 07, 2011, 20:08 »

A girl can dream, can't she? ...sigh...

click_click · « **Reply #126 on:** May 07, 2011, 20:22 »

Quote from: jsmithzz on May 07, 2011, 20:03

Listening to complaints? Have you packed your bags? Cuz you're going to fantasy land.

madelaide · « **Reply #127 on:** May 07, 2011, 21:36 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 07, 2011, 13:10

Quote from: gostwyck on May 07, 2011, 10:44

On the positive side I've P+'d the top selling 10% of my portfolio and have been got plenty of immediate sales at the new higher prices. I think this could easily add 20% or more to monthly earnings if sales remain stable.

Same experience here. Spent yesterday P+ing about 10% of my port - mostly best sellers or things I considered outstanding but undiscovered. Have already sold more than a dozen or so just Friday afternoon and Saturday morning. The higher prices make a big difference. $3.45 for a large and $2.70 for medium is very welcome

So this is a good thing after all?

leaf · « **Reply #128 on:** May 08, 2011, 04:52 »

Quote from: lisafx on May 06, 2011, 11:58

You guys are very persuasive

I am going to lay down my natural skepticism and add some P+ files.

@made aide
Yep. I think we convinced Lisa at around post 67

gclk · « **Reply #129 on:** May 08, 2011, 08:33 »

Quote from: madelaide on May 07, 2011, 21:36

Quote from: lisafx on May 07, 2011, 13:10
Quote from: gostwyck on May 07, 2011, 10:44

On the positive side I've P+'d the top selling 10% of my portfolio and have been got plenty of immediate sales at the new higher prices. I think this could easily add 20% or more to monthly earnings if sales remain stable.

Same experience here. Spent yesterday P+ing about 10% of my port - mostly best sellers or things I considered outstanding but undiscovered. Have already sold more than a dozen or so just Friday afternoon and Saturday morning. The higher prices make a big difference. $3.45 for a large and $2.70 for medium is very welcome

So this is a good thing after all?

I think so too... good for non-exclusives because their income should go up; good for exclusives because it makes dropping exclusivity even more attractive

borg · « **Reply #130 on:** May 08, 2011, 10:41 »

Can somebody explain this to me...

Is it way to put image exclusively and ONLY on IS, or possibility for non-exclusive contributors to make prices higher for their photos and also you can have same photos on other sites???

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #131 on:** May 08, 2011, 10:54 »

Quote from: borg on May 08, 2011, 10:41

Can somebody explain this to me...

Is it way to put image exclusively and ONLY on IS, or possibility for non-exclusive contributors to make prices higher for their photos and also you can have same photos on other sites???

You can make more AND keep the same photos on other sites.

stockastic · « **Reply #132 on:** May 08, 2011, 11:12 »

borg, thanks for asking that question - I couldn't figure it out either and felt too dumb to ask.

So the idea is we agree to higher prices for our image, and a six month commitment for those images, and we accept the risk that this might reduce sales? And IS maybe - just maybe - gives you better search placement - no guarantee, and of course it all seems to be changing by the hour - is that all correct?

lagereek · « **Reply #133 on:** May 08, 2011, 12:32 »

Yup! they are beginning to sell! and thats on a bloody Sunday.

leaf · « **Reply #134 on:** May 08, 2011, 13:24 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 08, 2011, 11:12

borg, thanks for asking that question - I couldn't figure it out either and felt too dumb to ask.

So the idea is we agree to higher prices for our image, and a six month commitment for those images, and we accept the risk that this might reduce sales? And IS maybe - just maybe - gives you better search placement - no guarantee, and of course it all seems to be changing by the hour - is that all correct?

yes, that sounds correct.

and just to be clear about the exclusive thing. The images in the Photo+ collection are not exclusive in any way. They are just regular images from a non-exclusive photographer that the photographer decides are better than the rest for some reason and wants to double the prices. Nothing more.

iStock has no image exclusive options. Photographers must be entirely (for their royalty free images) exclusive or not exclusive at all.

BImages · « **Reply #135 on:** May 08, 2011, 17:31 »

I used to have "Exclusive+" files on IS, what happen is this: (Higher price with less downloads=Lower price with more downloads)

The first three months, they bring more money, then the total amount of downloads (and the best match rank) get lower, and it give the same money as the regular photos.

So I removed everyones of them...

madelaide · « **Reply #136 on:** May 08, 2011, 18:05 »

What would be the explanation for these sales? Was there any promotion for buyers?

gostwyck · « **Reply #137 on:** May 09, 2011, 01:57 »

Quote from: Buzbuzzer on May 08, 2011, 17:31

I used to have "Exclusive+" files on IS, what happen is this: (Higher price with less downloads=Lower price with more downloads)

The first three months, they bring more money, then the total amount of downloads (and the best match rank) get lower, and it give the same money as the regular photos.

So I removed everyones of them...

But what about when Exclusive prices were introduced at the beginning of 2010 (which P+ is the equivalent of). There wasn't much evidence of buyer resistence then as far as I recall. Maybe IS have hit the 'sweet spot' with Exc/P+ pricing?

Exc+ may just have been too much too soon, especially after a series of other increases and introductions of 'new collections'.

lagereek · « **Reply #138 on:** May 09, 2011, 03:55 »

Trouble is, the best match has to tweaked a bit in favour, or else we wont notice too much differance, long term that is. Now in the beginning, buyers might just be curious.

borg · « **Reply #139 on:** May 09, 2011, 07:15 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 08, 2011, 11:12

borg, thanks for asking that question - I couldn't figure it out either and felt too dumb to ask.

No problemo!
Perhaps I am a bit dumber, so I asked why ...

P.S.

»
If you go to Aspen with small motorcycle....!? We can go together, as "dumb and dumber" ...

stockastic · « **Reply #140 on:** May 09, 2011, 09:23 »

I'm thinking this probably doesn't make sense unless we're promised better search placement - and of course there would be no way to verify whether we even got it.

I'm sure that if IS thought that this plan would boost their numbers and actually cut ours, they'd still be pushing it.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #141 on:** May 09, 2011, 09:44 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 09, 2011, 09:23

I'm thinking this probably doesn't make sense unless we're promised better search placement - and of course there would be no way to verify whether we even got it.

I'm sure that if IS thought that this plan would boost their numbers and actually cut ours, they'd still be pushing it.

How can it increase istock's profits without increasing the profits for the photographers?

stockastic · « **Reply #142 on:** May 09, 2011, 09:47 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2011, 09:44

Quote from: stockastic on May 09, 2011, 09:23
I'm thinking this probably doesn't make sense unless we're promised better search placement - and of course there would be no way to verify whether we even got it.

I'm sure that if IS thought that this plan would boost their numbers and actually cut ours, they'd still be pushing it.

How can it increase istock's profits without increasing the profits for the photographers?

Oh, I have no idea. I was just making the point that there's no reason to assume IS even cares if we'd benefit. Maybe they want to reduce the price spread between vetta/exclusives and the rest of us peasants so their plan to push the high-priced stuff meets less resistance. Maybe, like Buzbuzzer says, it boosts the short term at the expense of the long term. I would just look at anything they offer contributors right now with the highest degree of suspicion.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #143 on:** May 09, 2011, 10:25 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2011, 09:44

Quote from: stockastic on May 09, 2011, 09:23
I'm thinking this probably doesn't make sense unless we're promised better search placement - and of course there would be no way to verify whether we even got it.

I'm sure that if IS thought that this plan would boost their numbers and actually cut ours, they'd still be pushing it.

How can it increase istock's profits without increasing the profits for the photographers?

A buyer realises Photo+ costs more than regular.
Either he/she buys image anyway, or buys another image from another contributor.
As a result some photographers earn more, some less - but IS wins on average.

Furthermore - should they decide to push Photo+ in search - they pay a non-exclusive percentage for an high price image - IS wins again.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #144 on:** May 09, 2011, 10:29 »

Quote from: microstockphoto.co.uk on May 09, 2011, 10:25

A buyer realises Photo+ costs more than regular.
Either he/she buys image anyway, or buys another image from another contributor.
As a result some photographers earn more, some less - but IS wins on average.

let´s think a little, 15% IS are exclusives, how many files in there?? 1/4 of all collection? buyers are used to exclusives files and their price so I guess they won´t noticed that much unless they have lightboxes of pictures they want to buy or a really looking for cheaper ones (not that easy) unless they travel along pages as we know exclusives are on the first pages (not saying they don´t deserve, heck they deserve!)

Elenathewise · « **Reply #145 on:** May 09, 2011, 11:04 »

with Photo+, without Photo+ .... sales on Istock suck these days. I opted in some files but Istock is way behind Fotolia and Shutter for me this month. Significantly.

cathyslife · « **Reply #146 on:** May 09, 2011, 11:11 »

Quote from: stockastic on May 09, 2011, 09:47

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2011, 09:44
Quote from: stockastic on May 09, 2011, 09:23
I'm thinking this probably doesn't make sense unless we're promised better search placement - and of course there would be no way to verify whether we even got it.

I'm sure that if IS thought that this plan would boost their numbers and actually cut ours, they'd still be pushing it.

How can it increase istock's profits without increasing the profits for the photographers?

Oh, I have no idea. I was just making the point that there's no reason to assume IS even cares if we'd benefit. Maybe they want to reduce the price spread between vetta/exclusives and the rest of us peasants so their plan to push the high-priced stuff meets less resistance. Maybe, like Buzbuzzer says, it boosts the short term at the expense of the long term. I would just look at anything they offer contributors right now with the highest degree of suspicion.

I agree with you. I think it's a short term push and very soon the other shoe is going to fall, as in something will be taken back. Just as an example, you won't be able to deactivate any Photo+s even though they say yes now (from what I understand...haven't actually seen that in writing...haven't looked either) or all those photos automatically go to TS, or something sucky.

Elenathewise · « **Reply #147 on:** May 09, 2011, 11:27 »

Some of the files that I opted in for Photo+ don't show updated prices. The checkbox is checked (so I can't re-add them), but they are not showing under Photo+ ... Is this the bug people were talking about? Is there a workaround for it?

jamirae · « **Reply #148 on:** May 09, 2011, 11:39 »

Quote from: Elenathewise on May 09, 2011, 11:27

Some of the files that I opted in for Photo+ don't show updated prices. The checkbox is checked (so I can't re-add them), but they are not showing under Photo+ ... Is this the bug people were talking about? Is there a workaround for it?

there was something on the iStock forums about that. said that you need to go to the admin area for the file then hit the "save" button and it shoudl work. try that - I am not yet opting any in so can't verify it for you.

here's the istock thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=328522&messageid=6373046

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #149 on:** May 09, 2011, 11:39 »

Mine started to show after 24+ hours, I guess it's the usual caching problem due to sync between servers

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Photo+ - new iStockphoto collection for non exclusives (Read 56375 times)

wiser

click_click

madelaide

leaf

gclk

borg

BaldricksTrousers

stockastic

lagereek

leaf

BImages

madelaide

gostwyck

lagereek

borg

stockastic

BaldricksTrousers

stockastic

microstockphoto.co.uk

luissantos84

Elenathewise

cathyslife

Elenathewise

jamirae

microstockphoto.co.uk

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors