The video with Wyatt:

Nice dig at istock's pricing in there.

Doesn't seem to be good news, but who knows but Bigstock.

With the current pricing the royalty percentage for a vector file (6 credits) bought with different credit packages is:

12 credits package = $2,41 / credit = 20,74 %
25 credits package = $1,96 / credit = 25,51 %
60 credits package = $1,65 / credit = 30,3 %
140 credits package = $1,35 / credit = 37,03 %
350 credits package = $1 / credit = 50 %
700 credits package = $0,9 / credit = 55,55 %

I'm guessing most credits spent are 140 credit bundles and up, so they chose a fixed royalty percentage in the low end of the scheme. It seems. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

30% is horrible, especially for a relatively low selling site.  The problem is that they see other sites getting away with it, so then they make it look like a good thing.

What the sites don't seem to understand is that the lower our commissions go, the less we earn and then we are less motivated.  Pay me a decent amount and I will work much harder.  Keep cutting my commissions and paying me an unfair amount and I will end up doing something else for a living.

It's a bit like the tax system, governments usually make more revenue by cutting taxes, because it gives people an incentive to work and earn more.  The higher taxes go, the less motivation there is to work hard.

I like the simple pricing system but I wish they would keep the royalties simple and fair as well.  For a site like BS with low sales, anything under 50% feels wrong.

Doesn't seem to be good news, but who knows but Bigstock.

With the current pricing the royalty percentage for a vector file (6 credits) bought with different credit packages is:

12 credits package = $2,41 / credit = 20,74 %
25 credits package = $1,96 / credit = 25,51 %
60 credits package = $1,65 / credit = 30,3 %
140 credits package = $1,35 / credit = 37,03 %
350 credits package = $1 / credit = 50 %
700 credits package = $0,9 / credit = 55,55 %

I'm guessing most credits spent are 140 credit bundles and up, so they chose a fixed royalty percentage in the low end of the scheme. It seems. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

in Oz 12 credit packs is AU$3.40 / credit which is US$3.60 (no option to change currency, and you have to go back 2 years to get anywhere near that bad a rate) - anyway it is 13.8% commission

assuming they keep the same currency rates, 1 pay as u go = us$2.70 = au$4.05 = 22.2% commission so an improvement but not much

OK, this is how I see it based on the pricing from the video.

New earnings for a Small image is $.90 instead of $.50. An 80% increase.
New earnings for a Med image is $1.5 instead of $1. A 50% increase.
New earnings for a Large image is $2.7 instead of $2. A 35% increase.
New earnings for a XL/Vector image is $3.9 instead of $3. A 30% increase.

I'm excited. I may have to open up the doors again to Bigstock.  

Edit: Oops! I just reread the initial post and realized I just re-posted the same numbers. I guess I didn't understand what the numbers meant when I read them originally.

OK, this is how I see it based on the pricing from the video.

New earnings for a Small image is $.90 instead of $.50. An 80% increase.
New earnings for a Med image is $1.5 instead of $1. A 50% increase.
New earnings for a Large image is $2.7 instead of $2. A 35% increase.
New earnings for a XL/Vector image is $3.9 instead of $3. A 30% increase.

I'm excited. I may have to open up the doors again to Bigstock. 

Yeah, but the price for a vector will be ($3.9 / 0.3) = $13 instead of 6 credits that start at just $5.4 - I'd actually rather have $3 of $5.4 than $3.9 of $13.
Not saying this new structure is completely bad, but I don't think it's something to get excited about really. It's a trick all the agencies use, like when iStock raised the prices of my images from $10 to $12 while reducing my royalty percentage. Now $3.12 sales are frequent while the highest amount I'd get for a sale prior to that would be somewhere around $2.9 - $3. According to them I should be excited about this, cause afterall I'm getting more right ?

It might be that most buyers are using small credit bundles at Bigstock, and so it would seem like a good deal and a raise for contributors, but I seriously doubt that. Only Bigstock has the numbers and so the ability to call this a raise or a cut. The fact that we get PAID more for the new sizes vs. the old makes Bigstock able to announce "bigger commissions" as they phrase it in the newsletter.

This actually looks like a good thing. The prices in the video show $3 for a small image, so you'll get $.90 instead of $.50 for a one credit file. If that is the real pricing this looks like a huge boost. The old credit system looks like you could get as low as 16% and as good as 50%.

I agree. We should remember that BigStock's per-download cost will be higher for single transactions. And when sites require the purchase of credit-packs, some of the credits of which are never used, and are pure profit for the site. Single transactions will be expensive for BigStock.

And I believe that 30% is more than I get at IS for images purchased with credit packs.

... I'd actually rather have $3 of $5.4 than $3.9 of $13....

Hmmm, I respectfully disagree here.

It sounds terribly bad that a buyer is paying almost 2.5 times as much for the same thing (considering the buyer ONLY needs that one image - instead of several images which would logically lead to a credit pack purchase).

But you get 30% more for that sale than selling the same thing through a credit package.

It's a new way to sell images that they didn't offer before. I think it's attractive to more buyers plus we get more money (despite the fact that the buyers will pay much more for an individual file).

But hey, look at the On-Demand offer at Shutterstock. It's also a much more expensive option for the buyers but as we know, there are plenty of buyers that take advantage of that.

Given that the calculations in the posts above above are correct, I don't see a problem (yet).

It's a bit like the tax system, governments usually make more revenue by cutting taxes, because it gives people an incentive to work and earn more.  The higher taxes go, the less motivation there is to work hard.

Then as taxes approach zero I'm guessing you'll start seeing people racing around working so hard, their hair is on fire...and government's will be making 100s of trillions. ;o)

^^^It seems to work in Monaco, there's no tax there and they did have people racing around this weekend in the Grand Prix

Monaco has that luxury, because its a tiny country surrounded by millions of potential tourists, and gamblers. And I am sure they collect taxes from someone, if not individuals. Cars can't run without gasoline, and governments can't run on hot air...forever. ;o)

It also doesn't have much in the way of expenses...when's the last time it had a to raise its own army?

Sharp,

I get your point, but the reducing taxes only holds up to a point, just like raising taxes beyond a certain point is detrimental. Its finding the happy medium that is important. Part of the reason I responded originally is because I think at least in the US, that the "reducing taxes will increase government revenue" has been taken way beyond where this holds true, into where its become detrimental. For much of America's recent history taxes were way higher, and we did just fine...and now they want to take it down to 25% with a 14 trillion debt...they are crazy.

Has anyone gotten a new sale? Mine are all still at the old credit prices.

I got one $2.70 sale yesterday.  So far that's the only one.