0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 27, 2013, 16:56They 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.
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 27, 2013, 17:47Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 17:44The 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.
Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 17:44The 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?
Quote from: jsnover on June 27, 2013, 17:41I 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=6a96ca7http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6691673-senior-man-giving-woman-piggyback-ride.phpThey are largely the same and yet one is from 1 to 7 credits and the other from 35 to 160I 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.
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=6a96ca7http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6691673-senior-man-giving-woman-piggyback-ride.phpThey are largely the same and yet one is from 1 to 7 credits and the other from 35 to 160I 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.
Quote from: lisafx on June 27, 2013, 16:30I don't even see how exclusives could be happy about this, since it makes exclusive content seem even more overpriced by comparison. 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.
I don't even see how exclusives could be happy about this, since it makes exclusive content seem even more overpriced by comparison.