pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: ISTOCK - HALF OF IMAGES FOR HALF PRICE!!!  (Read 11603 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 20, 2013, 17:10 »
-3

Advertising on Facebook.

Forever!!!!

I'm glad that I'm not an exclusive iStock contributor. I'm not sure if bringing down prices this way (forever) is the best solution. At least for us contributors.

Even facing microstock as a commodity perhaps it would be better to increase the palette of customers, making the general public know better about our product. At least let the general public be aware of our existence.

99% of people have no idea of what stock imagery is. Even fewer what is a microstock photographer. If nobody knows the product and its producers, what is the point in slashing prices?

 







« Last Edit: August 20, 2013, 17:13 by olaialalala »


Ron

« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2013, 17:15 »
-1
Seriously, you are a month late to the party. And completely ignorant of the threads covering that subject being discussed to death.

« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2013, 17:17 »
-4
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:12 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2013, 17:25 »
+3
Old news but here's my take.
 
Lots of people, even on this site, said Istock's prices were too high and for nonexclusive work they probably were.  Look at the biggest competitor, Shutterstock, they sell the average image (full size) for about $2.50.  How can Istock license the same exact content for 10 or 20 times that price and expect to compete? It seems simple to me, they had to lower prices.
I love it how you keep forgetting the 70-200 dollar X-SODs and 28 dollar ELs. Plus regular medium SODs of 5-25 dollar.

« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2013, 17:28 »
-1
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:12 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2013, 17:40 »
+2
Old news but here's my take.
 
Lots of people, even on this site, said Istock's prices were too high and for nonexclusive work they probably were.  Look at the biggest competitor, Shutterstock, they sell the average image (full size) for about $2.50.  How can Istock license the same exact content for 10 or 20 times that price and expect to compete? It seems simple to me, they had to lower prices.

I love it how you think that the majority of exclusive content is really worth 10x more than the 'Main' collection. Take a reality pill __ fast.

NB: That's for a Medium image, which happens to be the average size downloaded.

« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2013, 17:43 »
+2
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:12 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2013, 17:47 »
0
ooooooooold  ;D

EmberMike

« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2013, 19:10 »
0
Old news but here's my take.
 
Lots of people, even on this site, said Istock's prices were too high and for nonexclusive work they probably were.  Look at the biggest competitor, Shutterstock, they sell the average image (full size) for about $2.50.  How can Istock license the same exact content for 10 or 20 times that price and expect to compete? It seems simple to me, they had to lower prices.

For once, we agree. I believe istock had to lower prices to stay in the microstock game. Or to get back into it, anyway, after seemingly trying to price themselves out of it and into some sort of midstock model.

I think you're grossly misrepresenting those averages, (they don't really license a single image for $2.50 and if you're going to factor subscription royalties into it you should do the same for istock/thinkstock) but aside from that, +1 on the point of your post.

« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2013, 19:53 »
0
Old news but here's my take.
 
Lots of people, even on this site, said Istock's prices were too high and for nonexclusive work they probably were.  Look at the biggest competitor, Shutterstock, they sell the average image (full size) for about $2.50.  How can Istock license the same exact content for 10 or 20 times that price and expect to compete? It seems simple to me, they had to lower prices.

I love it how you think that the majority of exclusive content is really worth 10x more than the 'Main' collection. Take a reality pill __ fast.

NB: That's for a Medium image, which happens to be the average size downloaded.
You are the one always talking about letting the market decide right?  As far as I'm concerned I have my answer.

Personally I think all images are worth exclusive prices but companies like Shutterstock have tried their hardest to devalue them.

What you think is irrelevant. What's important is what the customer thinks __ and that's the bit that Istock has always got wrong in recent times.

SS have stayed reasonably true to the original concept of 'microstock', whereas Istock have not ... and thus have suffered accordingly. Istock used to give away images for free so if any agency is guilty of devaluing images then it has to be Istock themselves.

Truth is that IS are now utterly * and no matter how much you try to talk them up will change that. The die is cast. Good luck in choosing at what point you will give up your crown ... because that is pretty much as certain as 'death and taxes'.

« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2013, 20:07 »
+12
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:11 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2013, 20:16 »
0
Istock used to give away images for free so if any agency is guilty of devaluing images then it has to be Istock themselves.
They still have a free image of the week or month or something, but AFAIK, it's still opt-in.

AIUI, in the old days it wasn't a giveaway, but an exchange between artists. Was somewhere there at the beginning who can confirm or refute? Didn't you have to upload so many for each download? Then, again AIUI some people wanted to submit but didn't want to download much, so the pay model came in.
Or did I get that all wrong? (Before my time).

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2013, 20:44 »
0

I love it how you think that the majority of exclusive content is really worth 10x more than the 'Main' collection.


that part is true! there are plenty of steaming piles of sh goodness in the exclusive section.

« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2013, 20:53 »
+1
/
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 11:11 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2013, 23:10 »
+1
istock is in full retreat mode, slashing prices, unlimited uploads, what's next ?

more and more signs of desperation.

it's the last stage of the microstock rat-race to the bottom before giving away everything for free and monetize the collection with advertising and print services.

Leo Blanchette

« Reply #15 on: August 20, 2013, 23:16 »
+3
Thats cute. I thought the change to accept 999 images at lesser standards was going to amount to something... this was it.

I guess I was "late for the party" too so its good to see whats really happening.

Its like watching a star go nova just before it's collapse.

« Reply #16 on: August 21, 2013, 00:37 »
+1
it would be more logic to launch a whole new collection with low priced images rather than polluting the main collection with promotional deals.

i mean, they finally recognized that 50% of their images never sold once, so what ? are they sure price is THE root cause ?

by the way, they can only blame themselves for this, no one forced them to price every image at the same level, they do that because it would be confusing and expensive to manually stick a different pricing but they could allow authors to do it just as it happens in many other digital stores.

they're losing a sh-itload of money using flat prices, it's great for buyers but a ripoff for contributors and agencies too.


Ron

« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2013, 01:11 »
-2
Old news but here's my take.
 
Lots of people, even on this site, said Istock's prices were too high and for nonexclusive work they probably were.  Look at the biggest competitor, Shutterstock, they sell the average image (full size) for about $2.50.  How can Istock license the same exact content for 10 or 20 times that price and expect to compete? It seems simple to me, they had to lower prices.
I love it how you keep forgetting the 70-200 dollar X-SODs and 28 dollar ELs. Plus regular medium SODs of 5-25 dollar.
I didn't forget those, I said the average, those sales are included in the average.  I like how you are forgetting the 99% of all licenses though.
I must have misunderstood when you said the average image, instead of the average price...

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2013, 01:23 »
-5
"I'm glad that I'm not an exclusive iStock contributor."

Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.

Ron

« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2013, 01:28 »
+2
"I'm glad that I'm not an exclusive iStock contributor."

Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.
There is no one I know on SS who has an RPD of 25 cent... so I dont know where you got that from.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2013, 02:48 »
-3
I'm not talking about RPD, I'm talking about what people can receive for the sale of a file.

Ron

« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2013, 02:55 »
0
I'm not talking about RPD, I'm talking about what people can receive for the sale of a file.
People can receive over 150 dollar for the sale of an image, in fact, someone reported a sale of 231 dollar the other day on SS.

http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131653&highlight=sod

shudderstok

« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2013, 03:46 »
-3
"I'm glad that I'm not an exclusive iStock contributor."

Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.
There is no one I know on SS who has an RPD of 25 cent... so I dont know where you got that from.


Ron, you are so in denial. Here is the 'Shutterstock Earnings Schedule' for you...
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

and also notice how you can get paid 'up to $120' so that makes me wonder how it is common to get $150 as per your other post let alone $231.


« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2013, 04:41 »
+3
istock is in full retreat mode, slashing prices, unlimited uploads, what's next ?

more and more signs of desperation.

it's the last stage of the microstock rat-race to the bottom before giving away everything for free and monetize the collection with advertising and print services.
People have been predicting that for years but since I started, prices are still generally higher than they used to be.  Istock have swung from one extreme to the other but who knows what they'll think of next?  They've had no long term strategy and its costing them now.  Printing services have never worked for microstock.  I don't see any of the sites using free images for advertising making much?  If that was a lucrative market, Google AdSense would be all over it.  If microstock was on the way out, the Shutterstock share price would of collapsed.  It could happen but after years of these predictions of doom, it isn't happening yet.  I think the real fact is that microstock is still a huge market with good growth potential.  The problem for contributors is getting a fair share of the profits but that's the same for content providers in lots of online industries.  I'd be more concerned about the traditional sites.  I don't understand the Getty finances, how much are the hedge funds taking out of them?  If they're being run by the same people that are wrecking istock, what's their future prospects?  Will alamy carry on cutting commissions and lowering prices?

« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2013, 04:45 »
0
"I'm glad that I'm not an exclusive iStock contributor."

Take a look at the earnings ratings, there are plenty of people happy to still be exclusive and earning considerably more than the 25 cents a pop that SS pay.
There is no one I know on SS who has an RPD of 25 cent... so I dont know where you got that from.


Ron, you are so in denial. Here is the 'Shutterstock Earnings Schedule' for you...
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

and also notice how you can get paid 'up to $120' so that makes me wonder how it is common to get $150 as per your other post let alone $231.

Looks like SOD prices are rising so fast, they can't keep up with it on the earnings schedule page :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
1416 Views
Last post May 31, 2007, 18:09
by dbvirago
0 Replies
1177 Views
Last post June 01, 2007, 11:28
by Istock News
1 Replies
1881 Views
Last post June 25, 2008, 07:44
by fotografer
5 Replies
2037 Views
Last post February 02, 2010, 21:29
by ap
4 Replies
1680 Views
Last post February 03, 2010, 03:41
by sharpshot

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results