So if the prices have been:
    XSmall = 1 Credit
    Small = 2 Credits
    Medium = 3 Credits
    Large = 4 Credits
    XLarge = 5 Credits
    XXLarge = 6 Credits
    XXXLarge = 7 Credits
since 27th June http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354618&page=1, why are they suddenly marked as "NEW - Save With Lower Credit Prices", then the prices are marked as:

XSmall 424 x 283 px @ 72 dpi  259.96 KB    1 Credits (sic)

Small 848 x 566 px @ 72dpi 863.67 KB 4 2 Credits

Medium  1696 x 1132 px @ 300 dpi  2.78 MB 7 3 Credits

Large  2875 x 1920 px @ 300 dpi  6.71 MB 10 4 Credits

etc

Firstly, they have been sold at the low credit rate for two weeks now, so it's hardly a sale.
Secondly, it's untrue. As my file, that I got the above figures from, was previously an E, the price until 26th Juine credit value was actually higher, i.e. 7, 12, 17, not 4, 7, 10.

More misleading/untrue advertising (the only from iStock and Editor's Pick being the other two recent ones).

As you noted, I see my former P+ files listed as having a previous price as if it were not P+. I can see why they didn't do it (I doubt they can track what collection the file used to be in), but it seems to be a classic consumer scam of the kind outlawed most places. You can't say something is on sale if it wasn't previously offered at the higher price, or if the merchandise isn't the same as the "regular" priced merchandise, etc.

It would be equally true to say that the prices had been "raised" from 1, 2 & 3 credits (from 2004 when those were the only sizes available) or any other price in the distant past. The most recent prices on these files were the ones they now show as "reduced". That seems fraudulent to me.

And a totally blatent lie is on my was Value Collection now Main files. It still has the text above:
XSmall 424 x 283 px @ 72 dpi  259.96 KB    1 Credits (sic)

Small 848 x 566 px @ 72dpi 863.67 KB 4 2 Credits

Medium  1696 x 1132 px @ 300 dpi  2.78 MB 7 3 Credits

Large  2875 x 1920 px @ 300 dpi  6.71 MB 10 4 Credits

Whereas in fact in the Dollar Bin they were priced exactly as now, so that is blatant lying.
Out of curiosity I looked, and Canadian consumer law is more or less the same as UK law (I checked at that time about whether 'only from iStock', when it isn't true, would be legal in Canada, and it is illegal. I posted a link here at the time, but here's another, summary link: http://www.advertisinglawyer.ca/advertising.htm

In the UK, the Advertising Standards Agency  http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/What-we-cover.aspx is reciprocal with their Canadian counterparts http://www.asa.org.uk/About-ASA/Working-with-others/Cross-border-complaints.aspx.
In any case, an international company cannot breach the UK ASA ("legal, decent, honest and truthful") if it is trading in the UK, any more than a hypothetical cannibal can cannibalise here.

Quote from: ShadySue on July 12, 2013, 15:44

And a totally blatent lie is on my was Value Collection now Main files. It still has the text above:
XSmall 424 x 283 px @ 72 dpi  259.96 KB    1 Credits (sic)
Small 848 x 566 px @ 72dpi 863.67 KB 4 2 Credits
Medium  1696 x 1132 px @ 300 dpi  2.78 MB 7 3 Credits
Large  2875 x 1920 px @ 300 dpi  6.71 MB 10 4 Credits

Whereas in fact in the Dollar Bin they were priced exactly as now, so that is blatant lying.

Boy, I hate to stick up for IS, but I'm afraid you're wrong. Barely.

For the period 13 June - 26 June, the prices shown crossed out were indeed the prices of those files. So unless there's a time limit on previous prices (they have to be sold at those prices for at least a month?), then this is a perfectly legitimate (if poorly-timed) way of showing the decrease in pricing.

Nope, still illegal under UK consumer rights:
[1]"Savings claims should not suggest customers are getting a special offer when that�s not the case.
For example, if an advertiser is making a savings claim i.e. was �250 now �125, then the product should not have been available at the sale price for longer than the full price. "[/i]
[ur]http://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2013/World-Consumer-Rights-Day.aspx]
That law is designed specifically to stop sellers from inflating a price so that they can then claim a sale.

It would be interesting if someone were to file a claim against them.
But I wonder if they could weasel out of it by saying the wording implies the savings is over the cash price? "Lower credit prices" meaning lower prices than the cash prices, which are roughly equivalent to the crossed out prices? I don't believe that for a second, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they took that approach should someone file a complaint.

Comparing to cash prices would not have legs. No doubt iStockLawyer would weasel them out of it some way.Or find some technicality.

But what about 'only from iStock'? That wording definitely implies 'only available from iStock' (despite Lobo's spurious alternative interprestation), not even available from the PP or Getty, far less available whereever the pseudo-independents post the same images.

In the UK, the impression that advertising wording would leave the average consumer is what counts, and I'm pretty sure the 'average consumer' thinks 'only from iStock' means exactly that.

Fuller exposition of  The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards:
http://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/canCodeOfAdStandards-feb2013.aspx#accuracy

iS seems to be pushing that line a lot.

They've changed the wording to "Save up to 75% with credits. ... Now save up to 75% on outstanding photo, video, illustration and audio content from iStock when you download with credits. We�ve cut prices on nearly half our content. ..."

So now it's a more clear implication that you're saving up to 75% if you use credits - and they've changed the content to 'cut prices on nearly half our content' and are making no 'forever' promises.

http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1562/article_view.php?ID=1553

Still says forever on the home page.

I got to that page via an ad on another page I was browsing, which just said "75% off ...", so I had to click it to see if it was yet more bad news for contributors!

Looks like fotolia first out of the gate to return fire.

After 6 months without sales, the content price will now be set according to this new pricing chart:
- XS & S = 1 Credit
- M & L = 2 Credits
- XL, XXL & V = 3 Credits

And in the Fotolia scheme, the contributor can raise the price after three sales. Kudos for a well defined scheme which still gives some pricing control to the contributor.

Quote from: wds on July 24, 2013, 08:36

Quote from: imageegami on July 24, 2013, 08:31

Looks like fotolia first out of the gate to return fire.

After 6 months without sales, the content price will now be set according to this new pricing chart:
- XS & S = 1 Credit
- M & L = 2 Credits
- XL, XXL & V = 3 Credits

And in the Fotolia scheme, the contributor can raise the price after three sales. Kudos for a well defined scheme which still gives some pricing control to the contributor.

You have no clue what you are saying.

no idea really

fotolia just lowered their pricing on inactive files to compete with iStock's Main collection pricing. You can now get files from fotolia at less than half the cost compared to iStock.

thank you iStock, so * happy

from fotolia's newsletter :

Dear Authors,
in order to give a further possibility of selling the images that have not been sold for a long time, we decided to make some changes to our conditions of sale.
If a photo has not been sold for 6 months, the price will be adjusted to this pricing scheme: - XS & S = 1 Cr - M & L = 2 Credits - XL, XXL & V = 3 Credits

Quote from: Mantis on July 24, 2013, 08:41

Quote from: wds on July 24, 2013, 08:36

Quote from: imageegami on July 24, 2013, 08:31

Looks like fotolia first out of the gate to return fire.

After 6 months without sales, the content price will now be set according to this new pricing chart:
- XS & S = 1 Credit
- M & L = 2 Credits
- XL, XXL & V = 3 Credits

And in the Fotolia scheme, the contributor can raise the price after three sales. Kudos for a well defined scheme which still gives some pricing control to the contributor.

You have no clue what you are saying.

no idea really

Honestly, what I was reacting to was the contrast to what iS has done where there is no clear statement on how a file who's price was lowered will ever regain a higher price point. I think in the Fotolia scheme if the period was much longer than six months (12 to 18?) then maybe not so bad? It all depends on whether lowering a file's price will positively impact its sales.