MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Should the Agencies introduce higher priced "collections"?

Yes, I think it would boost income and diversity
No, different Prices confuse customers and higher Prices drive them away

Author Topic: Poll: Should the Agencies introduce higher priced "collections"?  (Read 5190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

velocicarpo

« on: September 04, 2012, 15:30 »
0
Simple question? Do you think the other Micros should introduce higher prices "collections" like istock did? Would it drive away customers from that Agency? Or would it rather boost revenue for the Photoq as well as for the Agency? Would it broaden diversity in the collection and make a Agency more "unique"? Or just a cunfusing thing for customers?

Interested to hear opinions  8)
« Last Edit: September 04, 2012, 16:06 by velocicarpo »


« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2012, 15:53 »
0
We have one site that, even with a pretty low rpd, manages to generate the most income for (most) contributors, has the simplest royalty structure out there and the most transparent pricing structures - coincidence??

« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2012, 15:53 »
+2
Should they introduce higher priced collections? Yes. Should they do it like iStock did? No.

« Reply #3 on: September 04, 2012, 15:55 »
0
We have one site that, even with a pretty low rpd, manages to generate the most income for (most) contributors, has the simplest royalty structure out there and the most transparent pricing structures - coincidence??

I guess in argument against this point. SS did introduce higher priced images, and I think the argument could be made that it is the part of their business that is growing the most.

velocicarpo

« Reply #4 on: September 04, 2012, 16:06 »
0
We have one site that, even with a pretty low rpd, manages to generate the most income for (most) contributors, has the simplest royalty structure out there and the most transparent pricing structures - coincidence??

1. SS is ny far not my best earner
2. Shutterstock has various pricing options and license types, not just subs.
3. On SS I only grow through ODD and extended licenses. The Sub sales I get remain stable in number since years.
4. I continue to read that lots of istock Vetta contributors have high revenues with few high quality and creative images. I cannot compare their income to top SS contributors though.

« Reply #5 on: September 04, 2012, 16:11 »
0
We have one site that, even with a pretty low rpd, manages to generate the most income for (most) contributors, has the simplest royalty structure out there and the most transparent pricing structures - coincidence??

I guess in argument against this point. SS did introduce higher priced images, and I think the argument could be made that it is the part of their business that is growing the most.

No they didn't. All images are priced the same. The only thing that changes the price at SS is the volume you are buying or the license you need.

It is quite clear that the majority of buyers prefer all images priced the same and it is probably the greatest factor in SS's success.

« Reply #6 on: September 04, 2012, 16:18 »
+1
Yeah, I'm not aware of higher priced images (doesn't mean there aren't) - I believe these are higher priced licences that can be applied to any image.  The point here though is about what is good for business from the site's perspective and what SS do seems to work better than the competition and also works best for most producers. Hell, even when they introduced the photo challenge thing they did it in a very simple effective fashion, unlike some I could mention.

lisafx

« Reply #7 on: September 04, 2012, 16:28 »
0
Should they introduce higher priced collections? Yes. Should they do it like iStock did? No.

You took the words right out of my mouth.  Great idea if done right - meaning simple and straightforward.  If there are so many collections that you have to introduce sliders, you have probably gone overboard :)

« Reply #8 on: September 04, 2012, 16:34 »
0
No they didn't. All images are priced the same. The only thing that changes the price at SS is the volume you are buying or the license you need.

It is quite clear that the majority of buyers prefer all images priced the same and it is probably the greatest factor in SS's success.

You are right. The images are priced the same. I guess I meant higher price points and not higher priced collections or images. Really though, it is trying to accomplish the same thing... Trying to get your customers to spend more per image. Which they did pretty successfully by looking at their IPO statement.

« Reply #9 on: September 04, 2012, 16:41 »
0
E+, Vetta and Agency generate great income for me (I don't know how Photo+ behaves). So, I think higher priced collections are good.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #10 on: September 04, 2012, 16:46 »
0
No.
Different prices for different buyers are fine (e.g. subs, on demand, single...).
Different prices for different collections are confusing.

Unless perhaps if they introduce totally new collections... such as an editorial but non necessarily newsworthy collection (removing people and logos from a busy street is ridiculous).

« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2012, 16:58 »
0
I voted "Yes". Why? Protectionalism, mostly. Whilst my stock buying clients know very well what to look for, and know exactly when a project allows them to pay more for an image than subscrption sized prices, it confuses new contributors, as it did me, back in 2006. It makes things intransparent. Is intransparency a good thing? No. But it helps, if you use it to your advantage.

Should they introduce higher priced collections? Yes. Should they do it like iStock did? No.
Spot on, IMHO.

velocicarpo

« Reply #12 on: September 04, 2012, 17:14 »
0
Personally I am very happy with the Photo+ at istock as well as with the double price at Fotolia. So I voted for "Yes" and I would like to see my work more valued. Also, I think that if the Agencies do not give more incentive to the Contributors to produce more creative content they will run into a dead end: too much volume of the same stuff and a stalling amount of sales increase the cost of business until a point is reached where it isn`t profitable anymore...but I?m just guessing around.

« Reply #13 on: September 04, 2012, 17:28 »
0
I voted no. Microstock is just that. If clients want to pay more for RM, etc., they should go to agencies who sell that. Or the agencies should set up another company to sell that, i.e. istock and getty. Adding collections and different pricing is confusing to buyers who are going to microstock sites to buy photos at microstock prices. If contributors want to get more money for their images, then they should enter the trad agencies. Everyone keeps trying to change microstock into something it was never intended to be.

I am all for contributors making more money on the micros, and always have been. But we haven't seen any commission rises for a long time now. Pretty much the only thing higher-priced collections do is make more money for the agency. If every agency starts adding a bunch of higher-priced collections, they will want to shove them into the buyers faces, just like istock did. That just drives the buyers away, looking for prices they can afford to pay.

« Reply #14 on: September 04, 2012, 17:32 »
+1
I think it needs to be very clear to buyers why images command a higher price - I don't know what "more creative content" means, but I can see that an image on a plane with 20 models would cost more to produce than an isolated apple. Given some of the utter rubbish that iStock has imported into Agency from Getty, it is even less clear than it ever was why items are priced the way they are.

As someone I know said, "I like cash" isn't a business strategy, and Getty's drive for cash has muddied the waters on iStock from a buyer's perspective. For those who enjoy the higher priced sales, that's fine while it lasts, but I can't see long term success coming out of what iStock's doing these days. DT seems to be as lost as ever with its multi-tier pricing and I can't see anyone would want to emulate what they've done.

The other issue for any high price collection, is I'd think it would have to be image exclusive - you can't have it selling for less elsewhere. Other than possibly SS, who would you trust with an expensive-to-produce exclusive image in a new high price collection?

« Reply #15 on: September 04, 2012, 17:50 »
0
Personally I am very happy with the Photo+ at istock as well as with the double price at Fotolia. So I voted for "Yes" and I would like to see my work more valued. Also, I think that if the Agencies do not give more incentive to the Contributors to produce more creative content they will run into a dead end: too much volume of the same stuff and a stalling amount of sales increase the cost of business until a point is reached where it isn`t profitable anymore...but I?m just guessing around.

Then upload your 'more valued' stuff, not to microstock, but to places where it will be genuinely 'more valued' and geared towards buyers with the appropriate budgets. Simple eh?

Who sells more truffles and diamonds? Walmart or Harrods? Which of them sells more tins of baked beans (and makes much more money)?

WarrenPrice

« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2012, 17:56 »
0
Personally I am very happy with the Photo+ at istock as well as with the double price at Fotolia. So I voted for "Yes" and I would like to see my work more valued. Also, I think that if the Agencies do not give more incentive to the Contributors to produce more creative content they will run into a dead end: too much volume of the same stuff and a stalling amount of sales increase the cost of business until a point is reached where it isn`t profitable anymore...but I?m just guessing around.

Then upload your 'more valued' stuff, not to microstock, but to places where it will be genuinely 'more valued' and geared towards buyers with the appropriate budgets. Simple eh?

Who sells more truffles and diamonds? Walmart or Harrods? Which of them sells more tins of baked beans (and makes much more money)?

So... do you shop for Diamonds at Walmart? 


velocicarpo

« Reply #17 on: September 04, 2012, 17:57 »
0

Then upload your 'more valued' stuff, not to microstock, but to places where it will be genuinely 'more valued' and geared towards buyers with the appropriate budgets. Simple eh?


I have already a fast growing RM collection. It is not about me personally. I simply wonder if it would be a good step from the Agencies POV.

« Reply #18 on: September 04, 2012, 18:02 »
0

Then upload your 'more valued' stuff, not to microstock, but to places where it will be genuinely 'more valued' and geared towards buyers with the appropriate budgets. Simple eh?


I have already a fast growing RM collection. It is not about me personally. I simply wonder if it would be a good step from the Agencies POV.

We can only give contributors' points of view. I can't see why the smart agencies would bother.

EmberMike

« Reply #19 on: September 04, 2012, 18:42 »
0
Should they introduce higher priced collections? Yes. Should they do it like iStock did? No.

Bingo.

If done right, it can work to everyone's advantage. istock definitely went about it the wrong way.

« Reply #20 on: September 04, 2012, 18:43 »
0

Then upload your 'more valued' stuff, not to microstock, but to places where it will be genuinely 'more valued' and geared towards buyers with the appropriate budgets. Simple eh?


I have already a fast growing RM collection. It is not about me personally. I simply wonder if it would be a good step from the Agencies POV.

It seems to me that you are totally missing the original concept of microstock. You are not alone it that misplaced view either. Amazingly Istock have forgotten that simple premise too __ and yet they claim to have invented it. Microstock is about cheap images, all priced the same, hopefully selling in high volumes. If you divert from that then you risk losing customers to 'proper' microstock agencies like Shutterstock. Istock could probably have benefited with Vetta (alone) if they had not been too greedy, raised the prices too far too fast, introduced lots of other collections with numerous other price points and then spiked the default sort order with over-priced images. They blew it. Forever. By default SS will inherit Istock's empire.

velocicarpo

« Reply #21 on: September 04, 2012, 19:29 »
0

Then upload your 'more valued' stuff, not to microstock, but to places where it will be genuinely 'more valued' and geared towards buyers with the appropriate budgets. Simple eh?


I have already a fast growing RM collection. It is not about me personally. I simply wonder if it would be a good step from the Agencies POV.

It seems to me that you are totally missing the original concept of microstock. You are not alone it that misplaced view either. Amazingly Istock have forgotten that simple premise too __ and yet they claim to have invented it. Microstock is about cheap images, all priced the same, hopefully selling in high volumes. If you divert from that then you risk losing customers to 'proper' microstock agencies like Shutterstock. Istock could probably have benefited with Vetta (alone) if they had not been too greedy, raised the prices too far too fast, introduced lots of other collections with numerous other price points and then spiked the default sort order with over-priced images. They blew it. Forever. By default SS will inherit Istock's empire.

Yeah, sure.

« Reply #22 on: September 04, 2012, 20:07 »
0

Then upload your 'more valued' stuff, not to microstock, but to places where it will be genuinely 'more valued' and geared towards buyers with the appropriate budgets. Simple eh?


I have already a fast growing RM collection. It is not about me personally. I simply wonder if it would be a good step from the Agencies POV.

It seems to me that you are totally missing the original concept of microstock. You are not alone it that misplaced view either. Amazingly Istock have forgotten that simple premise too __ and yet they claim to have invented it. Microstock is about cheap images, all priced the same, hopefully selling in high volumes. If you divert from that then you risk losing customers to 'proper' microstock agencies like Shutterstock. Istock could probably have benefited with Vetta (alone) if they had not been too greedy, raised the prices too far too fast, introduced lots of other collections with numerous other price points and then spiked the default sort order with over-priced images. They blew it. Forever. By default SS will inherit Istock's empire.

Yeah, sure.

So who do you think will be the winner in microstock ... and why?

EmberMike

« Reply #23 on: September 04, 2012, 20:35 »
0
So who do you think will be the winner in microstock ... and why?

It's still a race? From where I'm sitting, this thing looked over and done with a while ago.

ShadySue

« Reply #24 on: September 04, 2012, 20:40 »
0
So who do you think will be the winner in microstock ... and why?

It's still a race? From where I'm sitting, this thing looked over and done with a while ago.

Maybe not: seems SS has dropped in the Poll from 100% last week/month to 92.8%. Didn't note the other stats to identify the winners/losers,but wasn't DP marginally above DT for a time?

« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2012, 21:09 »
0

RacePhoto

« Reply #26 on: September 05, 2012, 00:50 »
0
Should they introduce higher priced collections? Yes. Should they do it like iStock did? No.

Ah the perfect answer. Little heart for that one.  :)


« Reply #27 on: September 05, 2012, 08:24 »
0
I don't think it's a good idea. Shutterstock is moving along fine. This would be too much of a drastic change and could destroy something that works really well for a lot of people. It would put too much favoritism on some contributors over others.

I like the new licenses, but you can still get ANY photo at the base price, depending on your usage. It's easier for the buyers and it's easier for the contributors. Keep keeping it simple.

Besides, if you're a contributor and this is what you want, you have choices already. You can work with iStock or go with the RM agencies. Let's not make all the sites the same. That would mean fewer choices in the end.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
11 Replies
4464 Views
Last post July 22, 2010, 16:28
by madelaide
"Istock Collections" what ??

Started by lisafx « 1 2 3 4 5 » iStockPhoto.com

108 Replies
23209 Views
Last post August 26, 2010, 18:24
by SNP
4 Replies
2605 Views
Last post July 31, 2012, 16:50
by chromaco
163 Replies
21153 Views
Last post April 08, 2013, 13:13
by alberto
16 Replies
4860 Views
Last post December 12, 2016, 13:32
by unnonimus

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results