MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: [  (Read 44296 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2013, 17:03 »
+2
They will not get back buyers they have lost because buyers who've taken the trouble to change their minds and leave would feel stupid running back there now just because of a price change
Really?  I never felt stupid for shopping at a store with cheaper prices, if Barnes and Noble starts selling books cheaper than Amazon I'll go back in a second.

That's different from committing to a stock agency where you buy a heap of credits or a subscription and may even have had to argue with the Creative Director or enlist the help of the Accounts Manager to get the company to switch to a different supplier.
Some people may wander from stock site to stock site to try to find the cheapest one-off purchase but I doubt if there are many who do, especially as one-off purchasing seems to be the most expensive option unless you have very little need for stock.


« Reply #26 on: June 27, 2013, 17:04 »
+9
Should be titled "iStockphoto tries to undercut all other agencies on independent content" or "iStock desperate to regain market shares, sees chance to give away independent content".

Sean, i am IS exclusive, 3516 of my images are in Main Collection too, therefore they are not giving away only independent stuff. Very concerned they send more of my images to the very cheap corner.

wds

« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2013, 17:06 »
+1
A price readjustment was long overdue, but this is a bit drastic.  Really reeks of desperation. 

Unless volumes return to 2009-10 levels this will amount to a huge pay cut to indies, as their prices are now inline with cheap sites, but their royalties are about half what the other cheapo sites pay. 

Honestly, I doubt they can regain good will with the buyers they lost over the past couple of years simply by slashing prices.  After all, a lot of those buyers were also contributors, and yet another gut kick to contributor incomes is hardly a way to endear themselves. 

I don't even see how exclusives could be happy about this, since it makes exclusive content seem even more overpriced by comparison.  :P

Yes, and a price ratio of upwards 20 to 1 between collections for many images which are of similar quality is confusing to say the least.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 17:08 by wds »

xst

« Reply #28 on: June 27, 2013, 17:07 »
0
with 15%-17% commission - XL images will pay $1.5
SS is paying up to $2.85 on single image purchase. (non- susbs) and get quite a bit of those
In word, even if I'm going to submit anything new to iStock - it will be with 6-10 months delayed comparing to other sites


I actually like the price change. I think it's a little extreme, they should have aimed to get the XL images in the $10 price point (at current credit rates they're in the $7-9 range). But the sentiment is reasonable. Other companies are charging similar prices, and the years of price increases at istock have certainly cut down on the sales volume we used to see.

But why the heck not not try something. Things aren't exactly going well at istock lately. Desperate times, desperate measures.

« Reply #29 on: June 27, 2013, 17:14 »
0
I don't remember what was price for L image for example? How big is cut in percentages?

« Reply #30 on: June 27, 2013, 17:16 »
0
[
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:40 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2013, 17:16 »
0
Can't get the sort option to work reliably. E.g. I was doing a search by age, but when I went onto page 2, it changed to Best Match. Then when I tried to change that page to Age, it said, "Age" but the results didn't change. I had to close the tab, open a new one and start again. (Newest version of FF)

« Reply #32 on: June 27, 2013, 17:26 »
+2
This looks very unprofessional ...
Prices may fall or rise but not so much in a single day ...
This seems as a fact that they never knew how to determine the price for this type of product ...

Probably I will stop to upload on iStock soon, and I will try on every way to redirect customers to better sites for us and them...
I won't delete portfolio, because it is still my effort, so some money will be still good from old pics....

« Reply #33 on: June 27, 2013, 17:29 »
+9
Most of my sales last month were P+, I had carefully put all my active sellers into that category. It looks as if I will suffer something like a 75% drop in income from iS as a result of the combined effect of these two pricing cuts. iStock will, of course, lose the same percentage.

I find it very hard to see how that will be sustainable either for iS or for me.  There are 1.2 million files in the "main" collection search for "woman" and 2.2 million in the entire collection, so half the collection is in the bottom tier. If a 75% drop in earnings hits half the collection then that must knock a huge hole in their profits.

It looks to me as if they have gone quite mad.

Ron

« Reply #34 on: June 27, 2013, 17:35 »
0
Wasnt there a thread a few days ago about prices being too high? People wanted lower pricing. Isnt this a good thing then? Genuine question coz I dont understand one bit about IS.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 17:47 by Ron »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #35 on: June 27, 2013, 17:39 »
+2
Wasnt their a thread a few days ago about prices being too high? People wanted lower pricing. Isnt this a good thing then? Genuine question coz I don't understand one bit about IS.
Does anyone?
Do they themselves? They keep changing everything so often, I bet even employees there have no idea what's really happening.

« Reply #36 on: June 27, 2013, 17:40 »
+1
Wasnt their a thread a few days ago about prices being too high? People wanted lower pricing. Isnt this a good thing then? Genuine question coz I dont understand one bit about IS.

I think people were talking about the top tier being way too high, with prices in hundreds of dollars. What they have done is take the cheapest files and slash their prices to a fraction of what they were, so with a big discount on your  credits you might now get a medium size file for $1.50, with the artist getting 22c, whereas yesterday it might have cost you $5 with 75c going to the artist (I'm not 100% sure of the old prices though).

« Reply #37 on: June 27, 2013, 17:41 »
+12
I think the big issue for IS (versus for contributors) is that they now have a completely inexplicable, and huge, divide in pricing. Take two images of a senior couple doing a piggyback ride (only in stock images :))

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10095483-happy-active-senior-man-giving-piggyback-ride-to-woman-outdoors.php?st=6a96ca7
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6691673-senior-man-giving-woman-piggyback-ride.php

They are largely the same and yet one is from 1 to 7 credits and the other from 35 to 160

I think that the unpleasant surprise of finding images that aren't just a few credits more or less, but over twenty times the price (at the high end) is going to turn buyers off in a major way.

« Reply #38 on: June 27, 2013, 17:44 »
-7
[
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:40 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #39 on: June 27, 2013, 17:46 »
+3
I said it before, they have so many issues outstanding and they keep adding on top. I wish their efforts were spent fixing what they had and not adding more.

« Reply #40 on: June 27, 2013, 17:47 »
+7
The price on that image will be raised at least to the S Collection if not the S+ so in a couple weeks (hopefully) there won't be as huge price disparity.

How do you know that? Are you part of the team deciding on these things?

« Reply #41 on: June 27, 2013, 17:48 »
0
[
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:40 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #42 on: June 27, 2013, 17:51 »
+1
The price on that image will be raised at least to the S Collection if not the S+ so in a couple weeks (hopefully) there won't be as huge price disparity.

How do you know that? Are you part of the team deciding on these things?
I'm taking their word for it, maybe it won't happen but they've said it many times.

About that picture? Who knows what pictures will or won't move and to which collections (assuming they get their act together and actually reassign all the images).

« Reply #43 on: June 27, 2013, 17:51 »
+4
I think the big issue for IS (versus for contributors) is that they now have a completely inexplicable, and huge, divide in pricing. Take two images of a senior couple doing a piggyback ride (only in stock images :))

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10095483-happy-active-senior-man-giving-piggyback-ride-to-woman-outdoors.php?st=6a96ca7
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6691673-senior-man-giving-woman-piggyback-ride.php

They are largely the same and yet one is from 1 to 7 credits and the other from 35 to 160

I think that the unpleasant surprise of finding images that aren't just a few credits more or less, but over twenty times the price (at the high end) is going to turn buyers off in a major way.

The price on that image will be raised at least to the S Collection if not the S+ so in a couple weeks (hopefully) there won't be as huge price disparity.  The other point you're making seems a little backwards too, the high cost image cost the same before and after this change only the cheaper one got cheaper.  I don't see how that would turn off buyers more than finding the cheaper image at the old pricing.


You're imagining that they are able to view and make decisions one by one on 20 million images.

« Reply #44 on: June 27, 2013, 17:54 »
0
I see now that the cheap one has 9,300 sales, so I guess that if and when anything gets moved up that will be among the first to shift.

« Reply #45 on: June 27, 2013, 17:57 »
0
[
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:41 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #46 on: June 27, 2013, 18:08 »
+7
I don't even see how exclusives could be happy about this, since it makes exclusive content seem even more overpriced by comparison.  :P

That was my first thought. People have just recovered, that their royalties will not be slashed, now they will see that their files will have to compete bitterly with bestselling independent content.

I like the new design of the site though. Glad those flames are gone and it all looks much cleaner.

Machiavellian games

Hit them with bad news and hint at future plans. When people are reeling from the threatened hit in income, distract them from today's bad news by withdrawing one stage of your vile long term business plan. 

If they increase the heat little by little, they are hoping we will not notice that they are slow cooking us alive in our juices.

Glad I am out of this game with IS and staying out.

« Reply #47 on: June 27, 2013, 18:08 »
0
The Vetta file is more "authentic" - the man is chubby, with a bit of a double chin and a big nose. The cheap man doesn't look like a senior, more middle aged with powder in his hair.

Therefore, the Vetta is worth more, is it not? ;D


KB

« Reply #48 on: June 27, 2013, 18:10 »
+6
Which file is worth 10x the other file?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2493233-united-states-flag.php?st=c805381
or
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2388290-beautiflul-huge-us-flag.php?st=f2a69da

The idea of self-curating the collection to a degree (self-promoting to P+ / E+) was one of the few things that IS had done right the last several years. So naturally they remove that and replace it with an idiotic algorithm that can't tell an ordinary but lucky high-selling file from a higher quality and/or more unique file.

What they should have done instead was to continue to allow contributors to promote files to a higher level, but also allow them to demote* files to a lower level. Contributors know better than any algorithm ever could what is best for their files. If the concern was that files were changing price suddenly (laughable considering what's been going on the last few weeks), then limit the ability to change. But don't take away the one thing that was actually working and smart about IS.

* I guess that applies to exclusives only, allowing them to demote down to the Main collection.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2013, 18:13 by KB »

« Reply #49 on: June 27, 2013, 18:12 »
0
there are so many pricing changes that we don't even know, another iStock strategy ;D

believe the last pricing for main collection was:

XS - 1 (1)
S - 4 (2)
M - 7 (3)
L - 10 (4)
XL - 15 (5)
XXL - 20 (6)
XXXL - 23 (7)


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors