MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 16:03
-
[
-
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".
-
[
-
They pretty much have no idea what they are doing.
-
Shifting gears toward SS
-
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.
-
They pretty much have no idea what they are doing.
Well, they're copying Stocksy, for one, with their little "editor's pick" icon in the search results. Guess that's how they're plussing their favorites, like a certain Danish company whose entire portfolio of images are "picks" and now say "only from iStock", and yet, are available elsewhere:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10827673-business-colleagues-working-on-a-laptop.php?st=d6de6ba (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10827673-business-colleagues-working-on-a-laptop.php?st=d6de6ba)
http://business-stock-photo.com/Buy-Stock-Photo-of/Successful-Group-Of-Business-Colleagues-Working-On-A-Laptop/1220187 (http://business-stock-photo.com/Buy-Stock-Photo-of/Successful-Group-Of-Business-Colleagues-Working-On-A-Laptop/1220187)
-
Main Collection Photo Pricing
Based on what we have learned by watching customer behavior and customer feedback the Main Collection photo pricing is changing considerably.
o XSmall=1 Credit
o Small=2 Credits
o Medium=3 Credits
o Large=4 Credits
o XLarge=5 Credits
o XXLarge=6 Credits
o XXXLarge=7 Credits
-
Get ready for those refund emails for anything purchased in the last year from independents!
-
I don't know, I see this as having pricing all over the place. Hard to say how it will turn out.
-
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
-
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.
-
[
-
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.
They are going to raise prices on a lot of the better nonexclusive content.
Yes, but it doesn't look like that's happening any time soon.
-
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.
Am I the only one who doesn't like the thin rectangles around each image? It actually looks ok for isolated files, but for most others I find it mildly annoying.
I'm thrilled with the Main price cuts, though. I was really worried that IS couldn't come up with a way to lower my sales even further, but my fears were unfounded. This should completely kill them.
-
Is Editor's Pick newspeak for Vetta?
I'm astonished buyers wouldn't ask for clear icons to indicate price range of each file within a search.
About to look for images to remove from Main.
So, they're getting so desperate that two employees were forced to suggest something new this week. ::)
-
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.
They are going to raise prices on a lot of the better nonexclusive content.
Exclusive images would make more sense. Better for istock, because they are not promoting content to a higher price band that can be found cheaper elsewhere, better for the contributor because they will presumably get more royalties and they can decide to build a dedicated lightbox on a theme and shoot specifically for that.
-
I don't even see how exclusives could be happy about this, since it makes exclusive content seem even more overpriced by comparison. :P
I agree. Also, was non-exclusive pricing the big problem? Weren't they priced similar to DT and SS single sales? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I guess I don't have to worry about it.
-
Combination of lowest prices (at least M+ sizes) and lowest commissions in the industry is murderous. I expect that average RPD will be lower that commissions from subs on SS.
But Lobo "guesses we will see..."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354608&messageid=6906760 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354608&messageid=6906760)
-
I don't even see how exclusives could be happy about this, since it makes exclusive content seem even more overpriced by comparison. :P
I agree. Also, was non-exclusive pricing the big problem? Weren't they priced similar to DT and SS single sales? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I guess I don't have to worry about it.
Yes, it seems that a couple of years ago Istock was heralding by contributors for leading the race to higher prices in micro. Now they are in full retreat and are leading the way to the bottom.
-
its curious that iStock is so fast doing what they want but then take ages when a contributor finds a bug or other
now the 15% are even more attractive ;D
-
Combination of lowest prices (at least M+ sizes) and lowest commissions in the industry is murderous. I expect that average RPD will be lower that commissions from subs on SS.
But Lobo "guesses we will see..."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354608&messageid=6906760[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354608&messageid=6906760[/url])
iStock gets all the prizes when it comes to changes really, can't wait ;D
-
If they are going to market the site on the basis of the prices in the main collection, it will kill the exclusives. 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, so any buyers this brings in will be new customers - and it is really that easy to find a big supply of new customers at this stage in the game?
Of course, it is going to kill the independents, too, since sales are already down by about 80% from the peak as far as I am concerned. I suspect that this will push iS below DT in the earnings chart.
Bad news for all, I would say.
If I were a conspiracy nutter I would think the "typo" threat to exclusives earlier today was a bit of psychological warfare - make them fear the worst and then in the collective sigh of relief they will not notice just how awful the next big move is going to be for them.
-
[
-
Prices have to be reliable. That is even more important than the lowest price. Customers pick files early, but realize their projects (and buy the files) often many months later. To then find that all the prices have changed - that is the real problem.
And istock has a huge price band from a few credits to over 100. And files seem to move around on an unpredictable time basis, not just once a year in January.
Customers that sign up now for the new cheap files - how will they react if in 6 months one third of those files gets moved around by their software?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I don't remember what was price for L image for example? How big is cut in percentages?
-
[
-
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)
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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-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 (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.
-
[
-
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.
-
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?
-
[
-
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).
-
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 :))
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10095483-happy-active-senior-man-giving-piggyback-ride-to-woman-outdoors.php?st=6a96ca7[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10095483-happy-active-senior-man-giving-piggyback-ride-to-woman-outdoors.php?st=6a96ca7[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6691673-senior-man-giving-woman-piggyback-ride.php[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-6691673-senior-man-giving-woman-piggyback-ride.php[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
[
-
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.
-
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
-
Which file is worth 10x the other file?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2493233-united-states-flag.php?st=c805381 (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 (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.
-
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)
-
Edited: I'll keep that comment to myself
-
You can nitpick about the specifics, but there are millions (literally) of examples of insane price discrepancies:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-24281976-pregnant-woman-eating-salad.php?st=13bb83d (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-24281976-pregnant-woman-eating-salad.php?st=13bb83d)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-20364391-pregnant-woman-eating-salad.php?st=13bb83d (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-20364391-pregnant-woman-eating-salad.php?st=13bb83d)
Given the ingestion of wretched crap into Vetta, they clearly are incapable of making any sort of quality judgment as they flood the site with Getty cast-offs at premium prices (and I can give you lots more examples of that too if you like, but just look at Clerkenwell Images sorted by file age; start with this gem http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25410396-two-telephone-cords-intertwined.php?st=89e662f (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25410396-two-telephone-cords-intertwined.php?st=89e662f))
-
As the new Main collection files are now the same price (IIRC) as the old Dollar Bin/Value Collection, I wonder how low they're going to price their as yet announced Value Bin?
(In case you haven't noticed, there's a placeholder for it in My Uploads
(http://www.lizworld.com/VB.jpg)
-
'
-
[
-
So, when they changed the collections, why did they put a Value Bin placeholder? Most recently it was called the Value Collection, and previously it was the Dollar Bin, so it wasn't just accidentally held over, as it has been renamed 'Value Bin'. Also with typical iS logic, it comes after Vetta on a rising price point of collections. ::)
Just another inexplicable "typo"?
-
The main point I was making is that they haven't finalized the collections yet and nonexclusive content that rivals exclusive content will be moved to more expensive collections.
I, and plenty of other people, have similars and sisters across three for sure, maybe even four, collections within my own port, which won't be moved unless Lobo is wrong that they won't entertain appeals about collection placement.
-
[
-
[
-
[
-
Wonder if they are going to adjust our RC goals? Nice, we get lower commission and then get bumped down to a lower percent tier next year when the higher priced RC ceiling is used to calculate our pitiful little sales. And like all the sites who promise volume do they ever come through? Not only no, but FK no. Haven't heard IS come out and say that yet, but they will.
-
So, when they changed the collections, why did they put a Value Bin placeholder? Most recently it was called the Value Collection, and previously it was the Dollar Bin, so it wasn't just accidentally held over, as it has been renamed 'Value Bin'. Also with typical iS logic, it comes after Vetta on a rising price point of collections. ::)
Just another inexplicable "typo"?
I don't have any Value Bin files and that option isn't available for me. I would guess that it will be changed but maybe not, what's it hurting?
I have Main files but no Value Bin, as it doesn't exist. It's a placeholder, so clearly at one point they had a plan for it, like the mysterious Metadata Name and Value, which suddenly appeared without explanation.
(http://www.lizworld.com/MD.jpg)
-
Wonder if they are going to adjust our RC goals? Nice, we get lower commission and then get bumped down to a lower percent tier next year when the higher priced RC ceiling is used to calculate our pitiful little sales. And like all the sites who promise volume do they ever come through? Not only no, but FK no. Haven't heard IS come out and say that yet, but they will.
Good point. The RCs for Main collection files in larger sizes are much lower now.
They have already announced that next year's targets will be the same as this year, so adjusting the RCs drastically is a way of making sure that fewer people reach them.
-
The main point I was making is that they haven't finalized the collections yet and nonexclusive content that rivals exclusive content will be moved to more expensive collections.
I, and plenty of other people, have similars and sisters across three for sure, maybe even four, collections within my own port, which won't be moved unless Lobo is wrong that they won't entertain appeals about collection placement.
Maybe that's a good argument against/for having a portfolio full of similars?
Only since they started * about with pricing and collections. Previously, they were all priced the same.
-
we just got a massive pay cut, now we are thinking about the RCs, oh f****** misery
-
iStock
1) now pays independents some of the lowest commissions in the industry, both in dollars and percentage.
2) give contributors images away for free to the world without their consent (google drive).
3) forces independents images to be sold on the lowest paying of all major subscription sites (thinkstock).
4) has the the most time consuming uploading process.
5) is heavily favoring exclusive content
etc..
Do they really expect independents will keep uploading?
-
5) is heavily favoring exclusive content
searching for businessman (best match)
- first 100 results (4 indie files)
- first 1000 results (55 indie files)
buyers not using the price slider won't even notice indies, even if they do it will be down to cents
-
You can nitpick about the specifics, but there are millions (literally) of examples of insane price discrepancies:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-24281976-pregnant-woman-eating-salad.php?st=13bb83d[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-24281976-pregnant-woman-eating-salad.php?st=13bb83d[/url])
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-20364391-pregnant-woman-eating-salad.php?st=13bb83d[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-20364391-pregnant-woman-eating-salad.php?st=13bb83d[/url])
Given the ingestion of wretched crap into Vetta, they clearly are incapable of making any sort of quality judgment as they flood the site with Getty cast-offs at premium prices (and I can give you lots more examples of that too if you like, but just look at Clerkenwell Images sorted by file age; start with this gem [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25410396-two-telephone-cords-intertwined.php?st=89e662f[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25410396-two-telephone-cords-intertwined.php?st=89e662f[/url]))
I think you raise a valid point. Similar subject and quality images at vastly different price points...not good. And if they are going to move things around to help mitigate that, why didn't they wait until everything was ready and release a final and coherent offering rather than this piecemeal moving target confusion generating approach?
Okay I'm going to answer my own question. I would guess at iStock as at many companies, "schedule is king". They had a target release date to hit and they hit it, even if it wasn't really ready to be released.
-
This Main Collection photo price change will occur later today. The strategy here is quite simple - we are going to give our customers access to competitive pricing for content they can typically find elsewhere.
actually they are including a TON of exclusives files (which aren't available elsewhere)
and making it the cheapest license of all agencies, how desperate is that?
-
[
-
DT royalties from 25% (level 0) to 45% (level 5)
123RF royalties from 30% to 58%
DP royalties from 44% to 52%
GL royalties at 52% (you can set your files at 15$)
iStock have opened the real race to the bottom with a pay cut of 61% (them included), I wonder what other agencies owners are planning
-
]
-
Independents see a drop of RPD, but on another side, they do not have ANY upload limit anymore.
-
Independents see a drop of RPD, but on another side, they do not have ANY upload limit anymore.
and what a drop you must say, up to 61%
-
You weren't talking about royalties, you said the cheapest license. But if now you want to talk about the lowest paying royalties per license then look at the sub sites, some pay as low as 21 cents to license a full sized image.
But, iStock has/is a sub site. If you are going to average out your RPD at iStock, you have to include Thinkstock. Just like you include Single sales and On Demand in the RPD for Shutterstock and other sites that sell subs and individual image sales.
-
]
-
I guess the next step will be subscriptions.
-
You weren't talking about royalties, you said the cheapest license. But if now you want to talk about the lowest paying royalties per license then look at the sub sites, some pay as low as 21 cents to license a full sized image.
But, iStock has/is a sub site. If you are going to average out your RPD at iStock, you have to include Thinkstock. Just like you include Single sales and On Demand in the RPD for Shutterstock and other sites that sell subs and individual image sales.
Fair enough. For independents the RPD is probably about the same across many of the sites, what it looks like to me is that Istock has been lowering prices to compete with Shutterstock for a while first as you say with Thinkstock and now on the main site. There probably isn't much difference anymore but if people will accept it at Shutterstock (even praise it) then why wouldn't they accept it at Istock?
BTW whatever happened with Fotolia talking about lowering royalties for contributors that were on cheaper sites?
Why? :o
Maybe it's their insulting royalty rate? Or their abysmal upload system, maybe? ::)
If they fixed that I just might start uploading again... - Ooooh wait, wasn't there some shady deal where images were given away without any real compensation for contributors? :-\
If it wasn't that then it must have been some dark conspiracy to bring down the noble philanthropist getty/istock management orchestrated mainly by MSG ;D
What do you think, tickstock?
-
]
-
Maximum price on my pics is 5 credits... After their cut of 84%, What do I get? Maximum of 0,8$...
I am stopping uploading now to iStock, if everything will stay as it look like...
EVERY ACTION HAS REACTION!
So here is mine "Urbi Et Orbi": https://twitter.com/sinisabotas
My effort will be to redirect buyers to other sites in every moment from now...
-
I think the royalty rate is bad for most of the main sites and not too different, I think we are professionals so putting a little work into the uploading, keywording, etc.. of our images shouldn't be too much to ask. I think the Google Deal was blown out of proportion. Personally I wouldn't contribute to most of the sites if I wasn't exclusive including Istock, but that's just me.
I can see your different viewpoint as an exclusive contributor to istock.
For me as a non-exclusive contributor their royalty rate is much worse than everywhere else. As a non-exclusive contributor I put in some work into keywording. Then I upload to a dozen+ sites. Submitting my uploads at iStock (with DeepMeta!) takes more time than all other sites I submit to combined (!). As a non-exclusive contributor I consider that a waste of my valuable time that is indeed too much to ask, especially when RPD and RPI are falling like rocks. I won't open the Google Deal can of worms, but I think we as professionals deserve better treatment than that.
-
What do you think, tickstock?
I think most people will probably continue to upload like before.
I am glad I caught your first reply in time. I think it was much better than this edited version. ;D
-
]
-
I guess the average sale value from iStock will now be less than 50c per sale and at the same time they are promising to rig the search so it will be hard for buyers to find our files.
I notice that the new layout seems to be deliberately designed to hide indications of higher file prices from buyers, with Vetta symbols and crowns removed and just an inconspicuous grey script about "only available at iStock" appearing under every image.
Since Lobo told us that the research has revealed that the new pricing is what buyers want, but the files being pushed to the front are at higher prices, it's pretty obvious that independents are just the advertising bait that will be used to push Vetta and other expensive wholly-owner or exclusive stuff under buyers' noses. Hopefully the deceitfulness will drive away a lot more buyers to sites that pay higher commissions, such as SS and DT.
Meanwhile, either they have put credit prices up to around $6 each or there has been a "typo" and they are paying 100% commissions (which is fine by me since it more or less restores the status quo ante). It will be interesting to see if it takes them the usual six-eight months to correct that one .... somehow, I think they will become efficient for once.
-
Does it say only exclusive at istock for yuri's images as well?
-
Does it say only exclusive at istock for yuri's images as well?
I think someone indicated that it did. In the UK that could earn you a prosecution for false advertising.
-
'
-
Does it say only exclusive at istock for yuri's images as well?
I don't think Sean would mind me posting this.
[url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/06/27/istockphoto-drops-exclusive-label/[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/06/27/istockphoto-drops-exclusive-label/[/url])
The correct answer is that Yurilux has "only from iStock" written under his images. I don't know if that means that they are not available on his site or any of the other micros or not. In any case, I understand that anything that he has on iStock is also available on other Getty sites.
It's probably a violation of Canadian law http://www.ipvancouverblog.com/2010/05/canadiancompetitionlaw-misleadingadvertisingupdate/ (http://www.ipvancouverblog.com/2010/05/canadiancompetitionlaw-misleadingadvertisingupdate/) but I suppose they will carry on until someone bothers to make a complaint to the authorities.
-
iStock
1) now pays independents some of the lowest commissions in the industry, both in dollars and percentage.
2) give contributors images away for free to the world without their consent (google drive).
3) forces independents images to be sold on the lowest paying of all major subscription sites (thinkstock).
4) has the the most time consuming uploading process.
5) is heavily favoring exclusive content
etc..
Do they really expect independents will keep uploading?
It hasn't stopped most of them so far. They're too frightened to lose a few $$ in the short term, not considering that tolerating all these detrimental changes is going to lose all of us lots of $$ in the long term. Istock know that and now the other big sites do too. So I expect the long period we've had of getting our commissions slashed isn't over yet. The only way to make a difference is for the vast majority of non-exclusives to do something about this and as istock has the lowest percentage commission and now has low volume as well, they're the obvious first place to start.
I stopped uploading, removed 500 of my best images and left them with the LCV stuff, what is everyone else doing?
-
Does it say only exclusive at istock for yuri's images as well?
I don't think Sean would mind me posting this.
[url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/06/27/istockphoto-drops-exclusive-label/[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/06/27/istockphoto-drops-exclusive-label/[/url])
Good on Sean. To be a winner you have to know when enough is enough.
-
I stopped uploading for months. I resumed half-heartedly about six weeks ago but there no longer seems to be any point in continuing.
-
GETTY WANTS TO SWITCH OFF ISTOCK AND THAT IS WHAT I AM TALKING AROUND HERE FROM THE FIRST MOMENT!
PLAN IS TO EXPEL INDIES AND REDIRECT BUYERS TO GETTY TOGETHER WITH EXCLUSIVES!
IT IS EXPENSIVE TO HAVE TWO INFRASTRUCTURE AND TWO CREWS FOR SAME MARKET!
So there is no future there for anyone, abandon ship, redirect customer, abandon ship, redirect customers...!!! This is not a drill, this is not a drill...
https://twitter.com/sinisabotas
-
iStock
1) now pays independents some of the lowest commissions in the industry, both in dollars and percentage.
2) give contributors images away for free to the world without their consent (google drive).
3) forces independents images to be sold on the lowest paying of all major subscription sites (thinkstock).
4) has the the most time consuming uploading process.
5) is heavily favoring exclusive content
etc..
Do they really expect independents will keep uploading?
It hasn't stopped most of them so far. They're too frightened to lose a few $$ in the short term, not considering that tolerating all these detrimental changes is going to lose all of us lots of $$ in the long term. Istock know that and now the other big sites do too. So I expect the long period we've had of getting our commissions slashed isn't over yet. The only way to make a difference is for the vast majority of non-exclusives to do something about this and as istock has the lowest percentage commission and now has low volume as well, they're the obvious first place to start.
I stopped uploading, removed 500 of my best images and left them with the LCV stuff, what is everyone else doing?
Stopped uploading and removed all but my very worst file. I lost all respect and faith in the company when they started giving away files in mass. I have one file on IS and that is there so that I can keep track of files still floating around from stockexpert which I also deleted but still have money still coming in from somewhere. Some partner site is my guess.
-
Sharpshot prophecy:
*** It hasn't stopped most of them so far. They're too frightened to lose a few $$ in the short term, not considering that tolerating all these detrimental changes is going to lose all of us lots of $$ in the long term. Istock know that and now the other big sites do too. So I expect the long period we've had of getting our commissions slashed isn't over yet.
***
I will remove my best sellers and I will announce that on social networks! Every day for every bestseller!
Of course, with a link where is still possible to buy it!
PLEASE DO THE SAME, NOW EVERY OTHER AGENCY IS A FRIENDLY AGENCY! ALSO ANNOUNCE THAT ON EVERY WAY OVER THE INTERNET!
WE ARE IN SOME KIND OF A WAR! 8)
-
we will most likely stop uploading to IS today.
high price level was the only reason for us to sell for ridiculous royalty rate combined with extremely painful upload process.
-
this latest move from IS only confirms that non-exclusive content is dime a dozen nowadays.
it will be soon sold in bulk like sacks of potatoes just as they did years ago with the cheapest RF photodisc CDs.
-
Does it say only exclusive at istock for yuri's images as well?
I don't think Sean would mind me posting this.
[url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/06/27/istockphoto-drops-exclusive-label/[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/06/27/istockphoto-drops-exclusive-label/[/url])
The correct answer is that Yurilux has "only from iStock" written under his images. I don't know if that means that they are not available on his site or any of the other micros or not. In any case, I understand that anything that he has on iStock is also available on other Getty sites.
It's probably a violation of Canadian law [url]http://www.ipvancouverblog.com/2010/05/canadiancompetitionlaw-misleadingadvertisingupdate/[/url] ([url]http://www.ipvancouverblog.com/2010/05/canadiancompetitionlaw-misleadingadvertisingupdate/[/url]) but I suppose they will carry on until someone bothers to make a complaint to the authorities.
Maybe we can file a complaint here http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/h_00130.html (http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/h_00130.html)
-
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".
Full sized images still cost more than subs at shutterstock ($10 compared to the average of around $2.50) and pay the contributor more ($1.50-$2 compared to .25-.38), so they haven't undercut shutterstock just yet.
Check your facts buddy, they pay down to $0.07 comissions. The lowest ever.
-
EVERY OTHER AGENCY IS A FRIENDLY AGENCY!
Absolute rubbish. Look at the shenanigans at Fotolia (I still think they're worse than iStock with all their hidden little tricks). Even SS is doing funny things with Bigstock. DT has such a confusing earnings structure that I'm never quite sure what they're doing. 123 just cut our commissions. So did Alamy.
-
Does it say only exclusive at istock for yuri's images as well?
I think someone indicated that it did. In the UK that could earn you a prosecution for false advertising.
Canadian Misleading Advertising Law:
http://www.advertisinglawyer.ca/advertising.htm (http://www.advertisinglawyer.ca/advertising.htm)
http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02776.html (http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02776.html)
-
I guess the next step will be subscriptions.
They have subs already, both relatively expensive subs on iS itself and relatively cheap subs via the PP.
-
EVERY OTHER AGENCY IS A FRIENDLY AGENCY!
Absolute rubbish. Look at the shenanigans at Fotolia (I still think they're worse than iStock with all their hidden little tricks). Even SS is doing funny things with Bigstock. DT has such a confusing earnings structure that I'm never quite sure what they're doing. 123 just cut our commissions. So did Alamy.
I think Fotolia are almost as bad as istock but they seem to of followed there lead. Its the same with the other sites that have seen what most contributors are willing to tolerate and have decided there's no point paying a decent commission percentage, when a lower one still gets a good supply of images. I wouldn't put alamy in the same class as some of the others though. 50% commissions still seems fair compared to the 17% I get with istock that will probably be even worse next year. It would be a huge financial loss for non-exclusives to take action against all the sites that have cut commissions but I think dealing with the one that pays the lowest commission percentage and has done the dreadful Google deal would send a message that we can only be pushed so far. If nothings done on a large scale to make the sites see we mean business, there's no point in all these endless threads about the latest changes that are going to hit our earnings.
-
EVERY OTHER AGENCY IS A FRIENDLY AGENCY!
Absolute rubbish. Look at the shenanigans at Fotolia (I still think they're worse than iStock with all their hidden little tricks). Even SS is doing funny things with Bigstock. DT has such a confusing earnings structure that I'm never quite sure what they're doing. 123 just cut our commissions. So did Alamy.
I just wanted to say that all other agencies seem far more friendly than IS in this moment, in relative sense... Of course, the biggest piece of "microstock agency alliance" is quite unfair for us...
But we don't need to be in business with them, that is our free will...
They are greedy, but we are more greedier than they are, if we can tolerate all this and continue to upload on their sites...
-
EVERY OTHER AGENCY IS A FRIENDLY AGENCY!
Absolute rubbish. Look at the shenanigans at Fotolia (I still think they're worse than iStock with all their hidden little tricks). Even SS is doing funny things with Bigstock. DT has such a confusing earnings structure that I'm never quite sure what they're doing. 123 just cut our commissions. So did Alamy.
I think Fotolia are almost as bad as istock but they seem to of followed there lead. Its the same with the other sites that have seen what most contributors are willing to tolerate and have decided there's no point paying a decent commission percentage, when a lower one still gets a good supply of images. I wouldn't put alamy in the same class as some of the others though. 50% commissions still seems fair compared to the 17% I get with istock that will probably be even worse next year. It would be a huge financial loss for non-exclusives to take action against all the sites that have cut commissions but I think dealing with the one that pays the lowest commission percentage and has done the dreadful Google deal would send a message that we can only be pushed so far. If nothings done on a large scale to make the sites see we mean business, there's no point in all these endless threads about the latest changes that are going to hit our earnings.
So, we need another topic, "War against iStock", not "How to support friendly agencies"!
-
Isn't it amazing that when it's a change to our detriment, like RCs and dropping prices of Main files, it's always done in a timely manner, but when it's something that might benefit us, like mirroring E+ files to Getty, it can be months or in that particular case years late.
Funny that.
-
You weren't talking about royalties, you said the cheapest license. But if now you want to talk about the lowest paying royalties per license then look at the sub sites, some pay as low as 21 cents to license a full sized image.
But, iStock has/is a sub site. If you are going to average out your RPD at iStock, you have to include Thinkstock. Just like you include Single sales and On Demand in the RPD for Shutterstock and other sites that sell subs and individual image sales.
Fair enough. For independents the RPD is probably about the same across many of the sites, what it looks like to me is that Istock has been lowering prices to compete with Shutterstock for a while first as you say with Thinkstock and now on the main site. There probably isn't much difference anymore but if people will accept it at Shutterstock (even praise it) then why wouldn't they accept it at Istock?
BTW whatever happened with Fotolia talking about lowering royalties for contributors that were on cheaper sites?
1 - SS numbers for this month are over 20 times iStock, SS doesn't give me headaches (ever), actually it is the one that fuels the majority of contributors as you know, I dare to say that most contributors would quit without their income
2 - FT went back on their idea, nothing happened
-
Yeah, well, in my own case I have good reason not to trust Fotolia on the most basic level and since it's stupid to rely on someone you can't trust I no longer sell through them. When they respond to a request for payment by suspending your account and then put an internal memo on it saying payment has been sent when it hasn't, it is time to part company. At least iSTock tell me they are going to shaft me and do what they say.
-
deleted
-
I stopped uploading, removed 500 of my best images and left them with the LCV stuff, what is everyone else doing?
I stopped uploading and removed over 2000 images over the Google drive fiasco - and it was a huge deal (although luckily they didn't grab anything of mine)
I don't trust SS or any of the agencies at this point - each incident of "bad behavior" encourages the rest of them to keep pushing to see what they can get away with - however except for the ridiculous cuts at BigStock (which I suspect will come to SS in time) SS has been a straightforward agency to deal with. Terms have stayed the same or improved over time. Getty/iStock has broken numerous promises, broken the site too many times to count, cut contributor royalties and for many earnings as well. It has been opaque and obfuscating in just about every way it knows how.
So when the PP payments are delivered later and later each month because they can't get the connector working (really? all this time later you can't make it work reliably? their IT is either a kindergarten class or they are understaffing them so badly that there's no one working on most of the problems) or it just gives them a way to hang on to contributor money longer (managing the float is a time honored way for businesses to pocket a little extra cash), suggesting that there is any realistic comparison with SS's reliable timely payment (I don't ever remember waiting until the 15th of the month, ever, since October 2004) is insanity.
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
-
they know how to do the job but most of the times they don't care (when there is no advantage for them)
this last change shows that very well
-
Maybe I am boring but we need our stock agency! Microstockgroup agency!
So, how many of us are active here!?
We can make first round of IPO with first 100$ for contributors who want to participate and be shareholder....
Of course, we have to find country for agency registration, to find employees from this forum and start, easily, slowly...
When MSG agency will be "alive and kicking", contributors will be payed on usual way and on the end of year, with profit after taxes...
When every contributor start to feel this agency as his own, then you will see marketing explosion....
www.msgstockphoto.com (http://www.msgstockphoto.com) can be domain...
One idea!
On that site you don't have to be exclusive contributor, but unique demand can be that you have to be "timeshare exclusive contributor" or you have to upload new content for example 1 year only on "msgstock agency"... After that period you can upload anywhere...
-
Maybe I am boring but we need our stock agency! Microstockgroup agency!
So, how many of us are active here!?
We can make first round of IPO with first 100$ for contributors who want to participate and be shareholder....
Of course, we have to find country for agency registration, to find employees from this forum and start, easily, slowly...
When MSG agency will be "alive and kicking", contributors will be payed on usual way and on the end of year, with profit after taxes...
When every contributor start to feel this agency as his own, then you will see marketing explosion....
[url=http://www.msgstockphoto.com]www.msgstockphoto.com[/url] ([url]http://www.msgstockphoto.com[/url]) can be domain...
One idea!
On that site you don't have to be exclusive contributor, but unique demand can be that you have to be "timeshare exclusive contributor" or you have to upload new content for example 1 year only on "msgstock agency"... After that period you can upload anywhere...
Not many contributors here have the time or resources to start up an agency, let alone run it.
-
But they can have 100$ to participate in project... People in active team will work for salary not to be volunteer....
Every successful agency mainly start from one man, I don't see reason why people who are already involved in microstock might not know how to built up another one...
Also my question is:
Is there some agency (low earner) whose owner is willing to sold complete web and infrastructure to MSG contributors? Then we can make several IPO rounds to collect money for put that agency in "top tier"...
-
But they can have 100$ to participate in project... People in active team will work for salary not to be volunteer....
Every successful agency mainly start from one man, I don't see reason why people who are already involved in microstock might not know how to built up another one...
Search past threads on the subject and you will see.
-
But they can have 100$ to participate in project... People in active team will work for salary not to be volunteer....
Every successful agency mainly start from one man, I don't see reason why people who are already involved in microstock might not know how to built up another one...
Search past threads on the subject and you will see.
Ok. Please Tyler could you shut down this forum...
This forum has no purpose...
This forum became a place for weeping and crying after bad agency moves...Meaningless work! >:(
-
That´s a no go for me, simply not worth the frustration any more, deleting last remaining files.
-
But they can have 100$ to participate in project... People in active team will work for salary not to be volunteer....
Every successful agency mainly start from one man, I don't see reason why people who are already involved in microstock might not know how to built up another one...
Also my question is:
Is there some agency (low earner) whose owner is willing to sold complete web and infrastructure to MSG contributors? Then we can make several IPO rounds to collect money for put that agency in "top tier"...
IF you get 100 people to partake, you have 10.000 dollar. Its not even enough to get through your first meeting. Plus there is such an agency, Stocksy, unfortunately Stocksy is a private club who are not taking any new contributors at the moment.
-
It's unbelievable really!!!! >:(
I'm not going to upload to them until they fix their collections and my files have a chance to move to a normal priced collection.
-
Istock making files cheaper it's not good news for anybody. Istock has been (I mean istock, not TS or Getty) the only agency that has been raising prices consistently, reaching a good level, far away from the cents scheme. Other agencies, although having the opportunity, never followed this trend (stocksy would be the exception, but right now stocksy is just an startup). Actually, it seemed that the main marketing weapon of the other micro sites was to sell cheaper than istock. Istock will regain customers, no doubt. And so, other agencies will be tempted to compete again in price (let's say selling for 0.5 what IS sells for 1). And if selling for 0.5 is insustainable, next thing that will suffer will be comission rates.
-
So, we need another topic, "War against iStock", not "How to support friendly agencies"!
Reading your posts today, I am just shaking my head. Back in February hundreds of us got together and staged a protest by deleting all or part of our portfolios and stopping uploading. Where the F were you then? Going on like business as usual?
Now you want everyone to follow you into some "war" with Istock? We already had the "war" and you and a lot of other people who are irate today evidently didn't participate. If everyone had, maybe they wouldn't be pulling yet more sh*-t.
-
...Istock will regain customers, no doubt....
I'm not so sure they will regain customers. Virtually getting rid of QC and swamping the sites with images that they used to reject might make buyers decide they aren't worth bothering with. I think they've worked hard to get rid of their buyers, it will be even harder to get them back.
-
I was searching for images of and got a survey popup (which I took). I thought it might be about the changes in interface, but it was just a question about what I thought iStock sold (photos, vectors, music, video, fonts) had I bought from them and would I recommend them to others, was the site easy to navigate, was the information confusing vs. clear. There was a comment box at the end and I noted how it was so confusing to see a bunch of images that looked close to identical at wildly different prices.
They get points for doing a survey, but I can't imagine that the current state of the site is the result of listening to buyers in prior surveys.
SS is having a great June (much better than last June); DT is only 75% of June's numbers last year (in spite of having more level 5, 4, etc. images than I did then) so if I had to guess where the customers are going...
-
They get points for doing a survey, but I can't imagine that the current state of the site is the result of listening to buyers in prior surveys.
Oh, don't worry, they surely didn't listen to contributor surveys either. They maybe fine one deluded soul who gave the answer they wanted, and latch right on to that. If there were two, they could spin it, "Our customers told us that ..."
-
Quit submitting long ago, and on D-Day I deactivated all but one file. I wanted to keep the account active in case some miracle occurred, and that obviously hasn't happened. The main reason I originally quit submitting was the keywording process, which is the one thing they'll never change.
"Nothing works and nobody cares." - Robert Ruark
-
...Istock will regain customers, no doubt....
I'm not so sure they will regain customers. Virtually getting rid of QC and swamping the sites with images that they used to reject might make buyers decide they aren't worth bothering with. I think they've worked hard to get rid of their buyers, it will be even harder to get them back.
What have they done with best match today? Last night, a search on 'gorilla' was fairly reasonable, mostly actual gorillas, but a bit light on new files. Now there are mostly gorillas on the first few lines then a whole load of blokes in gorilla costumes, which either Keywords or Ducksandwich said were not to be keyworded Gorilla as Gorilla Mask and monkey costume are in the CV.
Honestly, what's the point?
Added: I think it's an extension of what I noticed last night when I said that changing sort order wasn't reliable. Now I can change to sort by downloads, but best match is the same as Age and I can't change it. Even trying in a new tab didn't change it this time.
Added again: best match works fine in IE but not FF.
-
So, we need another topic, "War against iStock", not "How to support friendly agencies"!
Reading your posts today, I am just shaking my head. Back in February hundreds of us got together and staged a protest by deleting all or part of our portfolios and stopping uploading. Where the F were you then? Going on like business as usual?
Now you want everyone to follow you into some "war" with Istock? We already had the "war" and you and a lot of other people who are irate today evidently didn't participate. If everyone had, maybe they wouldn't be pulling yet more sh*-t.
Please, could you remember my last survey which was actual here month or two ago, then you might not have reacted so harshly... That post was sarcasm related with my last survey "Let support fair trade agency"...
Also my opinion then and now is the same, deleting portfolio or removing a part of portfolio is not good enough, in fact they want to provoke that kind of reaction... I had tried to explain that here several times but without results...
Getty has strong will to repel you and me from iStock and that is whole truth... Less good images on iStock, mean easier routing of buyers to Getty images, especially for corporate buyers...
So I still think that deleting portfolio is not good enough, for any kind battle with them, certainly it is not a "war"! It is a retreat
They want to redirect serious buyers to Getty, and other such as bloggers to Thinkstock, and then to switch off whole iStock...
-
In that case, why are they piling rubbish into the main collection with the 999 files a day allowance and ridiculously lax inspections?
-
They make their decision on movements in statistics, sometimes illogical at first sight... But they are struggling for sure to keep buyers, not us!
Many new rubbish in collection will make customers nervous and then they will offer big, serious and unique "Getty collection" to them based on their behavior...
Typical for eBay for example! Many people stay with eBay even there are a lot better auction sites...
For sure, they have a plan...
Sorry, but we indies (and many others) are not in that blueprint...
-
In that case, why are they piling rubbish into the main collection with the 999 files a day allowance and ridiculously lax inspections?
PP fodder?
-
You can shoot me for this but I think this is a good move! They are looking out for their exclusives first and giving the customer what they need! I hope buyers come running back to iStock, heck it stills pays more then SS most of the time! This is a customer centric change so lets see what happens! You can always become exclusive if buyers come running back!
-
One more thing, the problem is supply and demand, iStock has enough suppliers to do what they want hence they are in the drivers seat, so is SS and others. The best thing they can do is to protect their exclusive base!
-
You can shoot me for this but I think this is a good move! They are looking out for their exclusives first and giving the customer what they need! I hope buyers come running back to iStock, heck it stills pays more then SS most of the time! This is a customer centric change so lets see what happens! You can always become exclusive if buyers come running back!
I honestly can't see how on Earth this is beneficial to exclusives. They have seen huge drops in downloads, and more recently earnings. How is giving away indie content for practically nothing going to reverse that trend??
-
interesting (depressing) who some exclusives keep on seeing the bright/positive side BUT actually you guys are f***** blind and still living the iStock dream which is more than buried
jjneff don't you dare saying that SS is paying us less than IS because that is the ugliest wrong lie you could ever say, that is just bollocks and you know it!
-
You can shoot me for this but I think this is a good move! They are looking out for their exclusives first and giving the customer what they need! I hope buyers come running back to iStock, heck it stills pays more then SS most of the time! This is a customer centric change so lets see what happens! You can always become exclusive if buyers come running back!
They claim it's customer centric, but I'm not sure.
I'm sure buyers would prefer to clearly see why some images cost 10x more than others, even if 'only from iStock'. I'm sure that while some will narrow search using the £ - ££££ slider, others would like to see everything available and while viewing the thums, see the price of each, as was there before, so they can decide whether it's worth paying 10 credits for this file or whether the one which costs 1 credit will satisfice. I'd be astonished if (m)any buyers asked for that to be removed.
-
Slightly OT, but I still don't understand how they can get away with saying "only available from Istock" on images that are sold all over the place at Getty and non-Getty sites. Isn't that blatantly false advertising? And isn't that still illegal??
-
Slightly OT, but I still don't understand how they can get away with saying "only available from Istock" on images that are sold all over the place at Getty and non-Getty sites. Isn't that blatantly false advertising? And isn't that still illegal??
In Canada and the UK, yes.
But you know what iStockLawyer is with semantics, e.g. the currency hike. I'd assume he's got their asses covered, impossible as it might seem.
http://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/canCodeOfAdStandards.aspx (http://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/canCodeOfAdStandards.aspx)
-
Buyer habits dictate most buyers won't use the lowest price point, now at the lowest price point iStock now is priced to include the small spender, the one man band like myself. For the past two years I have bought from SS and Pond5, now that IS prices are lower I will be shopping there for my images. Exclusive will dominate the upper price points so the up sale will benefit all exclusives. Since the market is saturated it is good to have less competition in the upper price points. Don't get me wrong as I feel non-exclusives should never be lower than 20% and iStock has not treated you fair at all, I am sorry for this massive pay cut for you as well! For the customer it is a good thing and only time will tell if it is good for exclusives or not. All of you are so talented, please keep in mind I have 40 pages of video in the "$" collection and I know the same will happen to video as photo.
-
I have to say so far this month my sales are strong. In fact I have had more iStock sales than normal as the past few months most of my sales have been Getty and PP sales. Maybe just an influx due to the changes, but this naive mofo is staying positive for now ;)
-
once again no worries because buyers are running fast back to iStock so they will have money to pay lawyers etc
don't you guys forget that this all for the sake of contributors and we appreciate it! (and so does Yuri)
-
Where there is an action there is a reaction, Istock lowering prices? what do you think competition is gonna do? sit and see their customers go back to big daddy?
Microstock prices are going to plummet and the agencies are going to drop the commissions they pay to their contributors will shrink in order to the agencies to survive the price war that just started. Anyway there is a huge offer of images everywhere, right? Just go to flickr and you will find people anxious to give up their work just in exchange for their names being credited. There is an big oversupply. The microstock market is saturated.
Microstock factories right now are over producing in order to survive the coming future market, some of them are even merging among them in order to remain competitive and profitable, in order to keep a certain percentage compensation in IS.
So whats the future? only being exclusive and overproductive could allow you to have a chance to survive if you are not more than a casual hobbyist. Even if you became exclusive and start shooting like crazy doesn't mean you are gonna make it.
Do you now understand why the famous danish professional microstock photographer we all know changed his mind agreeing to do exactly the opposite of what he was preaching for the last 8 years? He wants to be out of the microstock price war that is coming taking refuge in the medium stock exclusive harbor because he knows his chances of surviving in the independent microstock market are very narrow.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, the big losers in all this enchilada are the contributors, specially the independent contributors, unfortunately.
It is a sad day for microstock photographt.
-
so:
- independent
- istock exclusive
- ?
-
Do you now understand why the famous danish professional microstock photographer we all know changed his mind agreeing to do exactly the opposite of what he was preaching for the last 8 years? He wants to be out of the microstock price war that is coming taking refuge in the medium stock exclusive harbor
He already left the harbor. Right now he is having a blast in the VIP lounge on the Titanic.
-
Overall, what is hurting photography and even the design industry is that everyone now has access to the tools...hardware and software that used to be pricey and not available to the average consumer is easily obtainable. You used to have to go to specialized schools or become an apprentice to learn how to use these tools, now you have tutorials and training online and freely available to everyone. Things are changing...you can no longer rely on just the know-how, you have to truly bring something unique to the table. You have to bring what both comes naturally and through your own personal experiences. This is something that cannot be easily replicated.
-
Exclusive will dominate the upper price points so the up sale will benefit all exclusives.
No it will not.
It may benefit some exclusives; it surely does not benefit my portfolio. Is that my own fault, for gearing my port towards easily reproduced files? Perhaps. But I was basing my strategy on what was working. It worked for years, until 2 weeks ago. Now my port is dead in the water, and rightly so. You have to be an insane idiot (not just insane or an idiot) to purchase many (if not most) of my S+ files. And apparently the few buyers that remain with IS don't qualify. And sadly the non S+ portion of my port is filled with lower sellers (naturally, since most of the best sellers were promoted).
-
it's finally becoming a rat race to the bottom.
on the other side i've met a guy working for NGOs who made around 20K with his latest exhibitions, prints in A3 format of street photography stuff of asian cities, and this on top of his well paid full time job at NGOs, he's also planning about doing expensive workshops to teach newbies.
another guy works for a local newspaper, they're so cheap they dont even provide him the gear, he's using his own 5DmkII with a few lenses, if he get robbed he 's F-ed.
-
Buyer habits dictate most buyers won't use the lowest price point, now at the lowest price point iStock now is priced to include the small spender, the one man band like myself. For the past two years I have bought from SS and Pond5, now that IS prices are lower I will be shopping there for my images. Exclusive will dominate the upper price points so the up sale will benefit all exclusives. Since the market is saturated it is good to have less competition in the upper price points. Don't get me wrong as I feel non-exclusives should never be lower than 20% and iStock has not treated you fair at all, I am sorry for this massive pay cut for you as well! For the customer it is a good thing and only time will tell if it is good for exclusives or not. All of you are so talented, please keep in mind I have 40 pages of video in the "$" collection and I know the same will happen to video as photo.
So you don't care that the contributor might only get 15% and a low price with istock when they get 50% and can set what they think is a fair price with Pond5? You wont find any of my best images on istock, they're all on Pond5. I'm not the only person that has had enough of istock and I would hope buyers aren't only thinking of themselves because not many of us will carry on supplying new images if we can't afford to pay the bills.
-
it's finally becoming a rat race to the bottom.
on the other side i've met a guy working for NGOs who made around 20K with his latest exhibitions, prints in A3 format of street photography stuff of asian cities, and this on top of his well paid full time job at NGOs, he's also planning about doing expensive workshops to teach newbies.
another guy works for a local newspaper, they're so cheap they dont even provide him the gear, he's using his own 5DmkII with a few lenses, if he get robbed he 's F-ed.
We'll have to see if istock is successful with lowering some of their prices. They've not got a good track record over the past 5 years, every change seems to of sent buyers away. Buyers might not be bothered with lower prices, there's already sites out there that have failed by thinking cheap prices are all the buyers want. Buyers might not like having such a big range of prices, they might prefer all images at the same price. Hopefully they will be aware that a lot of us have removed all our best images from istock and no longer supply them with new images. Low prices and 15-20% commission is unsustainable for most of us and will kill off microstock, do buyers really want that?
-
Hi all...
I am both, buyer and contributor, trying to look at new iStock policies in realistic way from both angles. I'm writing this post because this thread looks is a bit away from reality and sounds like bitter chanting of angry ex-iStockers. My apologies.
Anyways, to me it looks like things are moving in good direction there for a simple reason. Client needs ONE LOCATION to find good content. He hates to waste time visiting 10 websites and buying credits heaps here and there. IStock now offers globally present content at really low prices but also great exclusive content at higher prices. That is a great value for clients and hardly any other site has something similar to offer.
-
Hi all...
I am both, buyer and contributor, trying to look at new iStock policies in realistic way from both angles. I'm writing this post because this thread looks is a bit away from reality and sounds like bitter chanting of angry ex-iStockers. My apologies.
Anyways, to me it looks like things are moving in good direction there for a simple reason. Client needs ONE LOCATION to find good content. He hates to waste time visiting 10 websites and buying credits heaps here and there. IStock now offers globally present content at really low prices but also great exclusive content at higher prices. That is a great value for clients and hardly any other site has something similar to offer.
But as a buyer, don't you also notice that it offers great independent content at low prices and a good supply of poor exclusive content at high prices? You've got no exclusive rights from going to the higher price point, so why not just stay cheap? Or does the "exclusive" tag create a subconscious impression that your client won't find the same image being used by a rival?
I do appreciate your explanation of how buyers might view the change. It's also interesting that several people have hinted that the perception of getting something better if you pay more will support the higher levels. Perhaps that's why Getty keeps polluting them with some absolute rubbish from its archives.
-
I'm split on this move but since I'm an optimistic by nature I'm inclined to wait and judge IS by results. All else is speculation. It would be very nice to see my sales at least return to 2011/12 levels.
Thinking back, I stepped into this game knowing it was like any other retail business, that it was going to get tougher, more market saturated, more competitive and potentially less economical to pursue as time went on - what surprises me (genuinely) is that so many others seem to have thought otherwise.
-
Thinking back, I stepped into this game knowing it was like any other retail business, that it was going to get tougher, more market saturated, more competitive and potentially less economical to pursue as time went on - what surprises me (genuinely) is that so many others seem to have thought otherwise.
Difference is, in a retail business you set your own prices and margins.
-
You can shoot me for this but I think this is a good move! They are looking out for their exclusives first and giving the customer what they need! I hope buyers come running back to iStock, heck it stills pays more then SS most of the time! This is a customer centric change so lets see what happens! You can always become exclusive if buyers come running back!
I honestly can't see how on Earth this is beneficial to exclusives. They have seen huge drops in downloads, and more recently earnings. How is giving away indie content for practically nothing going to reverse that trend??
Maybe they want to force exclusives to migrate their portfolios to Getty images...
-
Hi all...
I am both, buyer and contributor, trying to look at new iStock policies in realistic way from both angles. I'm writing this post because this thread looks is a bit away from reality and sounds like bitter chanting of angry ex-iStockers. My apologies.
Anyways, to me it looks like things are moving in good direction there for a simple reason. Client needs ONE LOCATION to find good content. He hates to waste time visiting 10 websites and buying credits heaps here and there. IStock now offers globally present content at really low prices but also great exclusive content at higher prices. That is a great value for clients and hardly any other site has something similar to offer.
But as a buyer, don't you also notice that it offers great independent content at low prices and a good supply of poor exclusive content at high prices? You've got no exclusive rights from going to the higher price point, so why not just stay cheap? Or does the "exclusive" tag create a subconscious impression that your client won't find the same image being used by a rival?
I do appreciate your explanation of how buyers might view the change. It's also interesting that several people have hinted that the perception of getting something better if you pay more will support the higher levels. Perhaps that's why Getty keeps polluting them with some absolute rubbish from its archives.
You are right that there is great independent content now at lowest prices, but if I understood Lobo well, they are still moving it to higher priced collections. Plan is to complete in it few weeks. If it goes well, independent artists will have their good selling files priced higher, but not as high as exclusive files. Seems fair to me. It is also true that poor new exclusive content is there in S collection, but if it performs bad, after few months it will be sinking to low value collection.
This new system sounds right. Maybe contributor commissions are low, but most importantly system is now client oriented and that should generate more sales.
-
You are probably one of exclusive contributors don't you? Trying to find your truth....
-
It may be positive step for buyers but I don't think it's acceptable for contributors unless our commissions won't change significantly.
Unfortunately brain tends to displace bad things so even I was that stupid that I uploaded to iS more - fortunately old - images just few days before this announcement. Getty / Google deal is almost forgotten and "dust is settled" as Lobo predicted.
I doubt that new buyers can compensate drop in income for iS, I don't think it can bring anything positive to exclusives. Seems to be lose-lose decision to me. On the other hand it's positive to see that even at iS they are able to plan few steps ahead - 999 upload limit with nearly 100% acceptance - prices reduced by 50% few weeks later. Hopefully transfer to Goggle docs or other exciting deal is not next step.
Everyone has to make his decision but personally I'm not going to upload images anymore to iS to get 80 cents from XL sale.
-
Hi all...
I am both, buyer and contributor, trying to look at new iStock policies in realistic way from both angles. I'm writing this post because this thread looks is a bit away from reality and sounds like bitter chanting of angry ex-iStockers. My apologies.
Anyways, to me it looks like things are moving in good direction there for a simple reason. Client needs ONE LOCATION to find good content. He hates to waste time visiting 10 websites and buying credits heaps here and there. IStock now offers globally present content at really low prices but also great exclusive content at higher prices. That is a great value for clients and hardly any other site has something similar to offer.
All my best images are exclusively not on istock :) I think you'll find if you look on Shutterstock, there's millions of great images that istock doesn't have. Lots of contributors never accepted their 20% commission and many of us removed images or stopped uploading when they cut it below 20%. I hope you're not a typical buyer, I can't see any reason for a buyer to only use istock when they have such a large range of prices and are missing such a huge amount of great images.
-
Thinking back, I stepped into this game knowing it was like any other retail business, that it was going to get tougher, more market saturated, more competitive and potentially less economical to pursue as time went on - what surprises me (genuinely) is that so many others seem to have thought otherwise.
I think it was obviousright from the beginning that the supply of images was going to be virtually unlimited while the ability to grow the market had very definite limits. It's actually much worse than real-world retailing because once an item is consumed it remains on sale, so stock never needs to be replaced but more and more stock keeps arriving.
-
You are right that there is great independent content now at lowest prices, but if I understood Lobo well, they are still moving it to higher priced collections. Plan is to complete in it few weeks. If it goes well, independent artists will have their good selling files priced higher, but not as high as exclusive files. Seems fair to me. It is also true that poor new exclusive content is there in S collection, but if it performs bad, after few months it will be sinking to low value collection.
This new system sounds right. Maybe contributor commissions are low, but most importantly system is now client oriented and that should generate more sales.
Perhaps I'm more cynical than I should be about their ability to pull off this particular trick.
Also, one of my main areas is a niche market. Demand is low but I am fairly dominant in it. Niche material really deserves to be in a higher price bracket (I had the whole lot in P+) since it is not readily available, but I find it hard to believe that they will generate a script capable of spotting the difference between low sales due to niche demand and low sales due to overpopulation of a common subject. Though I suppose they could have the main level for stuff with no sales at all and it would still have millions of files.
-
I certainly hope that they move indie files soon to a higher price band, but in general the very low royalty means my best work will have to go elsewhere.
However, since I do have an established portfolio on istock, I want to keep feeding it and hope I can supply something useful for my repeat customers.
I am not sure if I have the right strategy how to make that work, but I am thinking of a combination of very simple files, objects on white, that I could also survive if they end up on google drive or other "deals", and maybe some of my more specialized images at medium size. Maybe a few L sized images. The royalties and prices are so low, I really don´t benefit much from having a sale in XL or higher. The full size files will go to the agencies that offer better royalties, so they get the advantage there.
I don´t understand why they offer less than 20%. Even for videos they only pay 15%, so I am not surprised that the best work is going to pond5 that offers 50% and control over prices. Even pros with large portfolios will have a hard time moving up the royalty ladder. And now that Pond5 also takes photos, I am sure they will be successful in that field as well.
Only the many files I have from the Lypses will go up in full size. But I will wait until they offer S levels for indies and when they have sorted out their changes.
The low prices for main and the extremly low royalties for indies, means the next 12 months have a terrible price war coming up. I am sure the other agencies will be lowering prices and royalties as well.
-
In that case, why are they piling rubbish into the main collection with the 999 files a day allowance and ridiculously lax inspections?
PP fodder?
Even that doesn't really make sense. PP is a much bigger collection than iStock. Rubbish is just going to get washed down the search and take up server space for nothing.
-
Apparently not considering that we now can't have any file moved to Getty unless there are accepted as Vetta
You can shoot me for this but I think this is a good move! They are looking out for their exclusives first and giving the customer what they need! I hope buyers come running back to iStock, heck it stills pays more then SS most of the time! This is a customer centric change so lets see what happens! You can always become exclusive if buyers come running back!
I honestly can't see how on Earth this is beneficial to exclusives. They have seen huge drops in downloads, and more recently earnings. How is giving away indie content for practically nothing going to reverse that trend??
Maybe they want to force exclusives to migrate their portfolios to Getty images...
-
I love seeing my flamed images in large sizes being sold for a buck now. Thanks, Istock, the monkeys in the think tank are doing their job very well.
-
Apparently not considering that we now can't have any file moved to Getty unless there are accepted as Vetta
FWIW:
"What will get mirrored to Getty under the new collections scheme?
The Vetta and Signature Plus collections will be mirrored on Getty."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354345&messageid=6899067 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354345&messageid=6899067)
-
Apparently not considering that we now can't have any file moved to Getty unless there are accepted as Vetta
FWIW:
"What will get mirrored to Getty under the new collections scheme?
The Vetta and Signature Plus collections will be mirrored on Getty."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354345&messageid=6899067[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354345&messageid=6899067[/url])
Signature plus is in game ha?
So it begins! As I told you...
-
Apparently not considering that we now can't have any file moved to Getty unless there are accepted as Vetta
FWIW:
"What will get mirrored to Getty under the new collections scheme?
The Vetta and Signature Plus collections will be mirrored on Getty."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354345&messageid=6899067[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354345&messageid=6899067[/url])
Signature plus is in game ha?
So it begins! As I told you...
No different from E+, which was mirrored to Getty; in theory; and in practice when their connector worked.
-
Yes, you're right! But it's change nothing, non exclusives still work for peanuts... Plan is clear as it was before those changes!
What royalty rate will non exclusives earn from files in Signature+ that are mirrored to Getty?
Non-exclusives will receive 15% commission in the event we mirror Non-exclusive photo content on Getty.
-
I thought Getty was 20% regardless of exclusivity... Getty sells the content at higher rates...I earn more when stuff sells on Getty
-
I thought Getty was 20% regardless of exclusivity... Getty sells the content at higher rates...I earn more when stuff sells on Getty
Nope, Borg is correct: if it's iS files which are mirrored on Getty, indies get a lower %age than exclusives and e.g. Flickr/Getty contributors, who AIUI get 20%, unless that changed very recently.
Very last FAQ in this post: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354345&messageid=6899067 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354345&messageid=6899067)
NB: Getty doesn't always sell the content at higher rates. I have a GI sale which netted me $1.19, which is much less than I could earn on an E+ (as it was) or S+ file, no matter how huge the credit pack and discount. IIRC, I've heard of iS/Getty sales netting even less.
-
Gotcha, my Getty experience comes from video.
-
Apparently you missed the part where it says that NO NEW FILES will be accepted as Signature Plus.
They can be transferred as S+ after a period of time if the file performs well. Well, the time considered for those moves and criteria are top secret info that istock is not willing to share.
Apparently not considering that we now can't have any file moved to Getty unless there are accepted as Vetta
FWIW:
"What will get mirrored to Getty under the new collections scheme?
The Vetta and Signature Plus collections will be mirrored on Getty."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354345&messageid=6899067[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354345&messageid=6899067[/url])
-
it's finally becoming a rat race to the bottom.
on the other side i've met a guy working for NGOs who made around 20K with his latest exhibitions, prints in A3 format of street photography stuff of asian cities, and this on top of his well paid full time job at NGOs, he's also planning about doing expensive workshops to teach newbies.
another guy works for a local newspaper, they're so cheap they dont even provide him the gear, he's using his own 5DmkII with a few lenses, if he get robbed he 's F-ed.
We'll have to see if istock is successful with lowering some of their prices. They've not got a good track record over the past 5 years, every change seems to of sent buyers away. Buyers might not be bothered with lower prices, there's already sites out there that have failed by thinking cheap prices are all the buyers want. Buyers might not like having such a big range of prices, they might prefer all images at the same price. Hopefully they will be aware that a lot of us have removed all our best images from istock and no longer supply them with new images. Low prices and 15-20% commission is unsustainable for most of us and will kill off microstock, do buyers really want that?
many buyers are simply discovering that SS and other agencies are as good or better than IS, simple as that.
however, i dont think they give any sh-it about our fees, in their eyes photographers are all rich just for clicking a button on a camera !
IS lowering prices could seriously shooting itself in the foot, in practical terms they're undervalueing their one brand and their products, it's the final acknowledgment that what they sell is no more in any way superior to the competition and hence no more worthy of a premium price.
-
Really? Basically what they are doing is to sell the same files you can buy at any other site at a price that is still higher than most of the other sites (specially sub sites) So, these files were already further devaluated elsewhere.
-
Until these recent changes my RPD at Istock was about $2. With the loss of P+ and now also the reduction in prices for 'Main collection' my RPD over the last couple of days appears to have slumped to below $1.
Based on that it looks like my earnings at IS (not including the mythical PP earnings, should they ever materialise) will be down 50%+ from here on in. Sales would need to more than double for earnings to remain at their current level. It means that on Istock my earnings are likely to be on about the same level as DT, FT and even the PP itself, all of which tend to fight among themselves for 3rd, 4th and 5th place.
Of course it also means that Istock's revenue will be slashed to the same degree ... and they know it too. For Istock to make such a bold move is evidence that the steady slump in sales, that most of us have been reporting, was every bit as bad as we have projected here in various threads over the last couple of years. Istock management have clearly had no choice but to actually listen to their customers (for once in their life) and take drastic action in an attempt to save the business. I reckon this is about as serious as it gets for Istock.
-
another step in istock's quest to become become the undisputed leader... of the middle tier
-
The whole collections reshuiffle combined with the lowering of main prices is actually not fully in the customers' favour, although clearly they will like that former 'A' files are now cheaper.
Promoting or demoting files based on sales does not make it clear to customers why one file costs X, another costs Xx5 and another costs Xx10. Also, they're not showing price differences on search, so not helping customers make file vs price choices. That is definitely not customer-centric.
Lowering prices of the Main collection makes it less likely that exclusives will shoot low-supply, low-demand images, of the type that get few downloads, but not in the Vetta mould, so lowering choice for certain buyers, who don't want the usual 'stocky' shots.
Promoting/demoting images based on sales discourages contributors to upload 'similars/sisters', giving less choice to customers and again discouraging contributors from setting up special shoots from which they will only upload a few images.
-
3.36$ (L with photo+)
1.24$ (S with photo+)
now 1.05$ (L)
-
The only way this could work in favor of IS is that with the price cut people are going to miss their RC targets and the cost reduction on paying less royalties is greater than the loss of revenue due to the price cuts.
If IS had increased the RC levels or cut the royalties it would have been a battlefield, now they cut pricing, they wrap it up in a 'we listened to the customer' bullcrap spin and make it sound like a good thing. I mean, who is going to argue with the customer, eh?
-
The only way this could work in favor of IS is that with the price cut people are going to miss their RC targets and the cost reduction on paying less royalties is greater than the loss of revenue due to the price cuts.
Mathematically impossible. They must be losing 40-50% on inde sales. They only pay a 15-20% in commission. The most they will claw back by cutting levels will be 2 or 3%.
The only thing that seems to make any sense at all is that they want to lure buyers back with promises of cheap material, then catapult them up into the Signature or Vetta collections by hiding all the cheaper stuff. But I doubt if it will work since it depends on buyers being very stupid indeed.
-
I still see this as a bullish move for iStock. To have different priced collections has been proven to work now. To have mostly exclusive content in the upper collections makes sense. To have great pricing in the main collection I hope will bring buyers back. I will be back. I hate RC's as well, time will tell if these bold moves will work or not, I hope it is not to late for iStock. I am staying positive on this one
-
Maybe, they are trying to drive away all the photographers and become an illustration only site?
Hmm... Maybe, not.
-
They must be losing 40-50% on inde sales.
they are losing more than 50%
1 (1)
4 (2) (-50%)
7 (3) (-57%)
10 (4) (-60%)
12 (5) (-58%)
15 (6) (-60%)
18 (7) (-61%)
now add the S+ that must have a lot less files than photo+ (I had 60 files, 0 on S+)
-
... they owned the whole industry and let competitors like SS take the lead and steal their buyers one by one.
Even worse, the other agencies did not have to "steal" their buyers. Istock themselves drove the buyers away with their myriad stupid policies and boneheaded moves.
-
There are solutions:
0. Stop upload to iStockphoto...
1. Leave current portfolio on iStock (without bestsellers) which is still your effort and time, you will get some money...
2. Advertise on every possible way that iStock from now will have only your OLD pictures...
3. Advertise your portfolios from every friendly agency, especially with your new content, point is on NEW content....
4. Explain to buyers with few words reason for stopping upload to iStock wherever you can...
5. Explain differences to buyers what are their benefits (prices, quality, +/- iShits collections differences, etc.) on other friendly agencies...
6. Do that every day, BE PROVOVATIVE, arouse suspicion, BRING ATTENTION...
7. Think what is other way to bring customers to fair deal for you and our community...
-
why so complicated.
0 and 1 is enough. we will not even bother with removing old top-sellers.
just treat istock the way you treat once alive now abandoned stockxpert. sometimes log in to ask a tiny payout if it's available. no uploads, no expectations, no hard feelings. no waste of any energy.
-
...
7. Think what is other way to bring customers to fair deal for you and our community...
Symbiostock! - 100% royalty ;)
-
I still see this as a bullish move for iStock.
To me, it looks like they are drowning in a pool. They are flailing around wildly without any rational thought other than just trying to stay above water. We could jump in to rescue them, but they would just try to push us under to save themselves.
-
I still see this as a bullish move for iStock.
To me, it looks like they are drowning in a pool. They are flailing around wildly without any rational thought other than just trying to stay above water. We could jump in to rescue them, but they would just try to push us under to save themselves.
an apt analogy. it seems like they're scrambling to create profit growth, and despite evidence that their decisions have seriously handicapped the business, their strategy continues to be sacrificing the well-being of dedicated contributors and image quality = the very things that iStock's success was contingent on. I don't think there's any going back now.
-
...
7. Think what is other way to bring customers to fair deal for you and our community...
Symbiostock! - 100% royalty ;)
I really don't know how to make this solution easy and profitable...
-
it seems like they're scrambling to create profit growth, and despite evidence that their decisions have seriously handicapped the business, their strategy continues to be sacrificing the well-being of dedicated contributors and image quality = the very things that iStock's success was contingent on. I don't think there's any going back now.
These actions are not about creating profit growth __ they are anything but. These actions are a somewhat belated attempt to save the business after they chose to ignore the last 3 years of falling sales and customers leaving. Suddenly Istock management are actually looking further ahead than the next quarterly targets imposed by Getty.
The data from my sales, Sean's and quite a few others, if projected forward, indicated that, at the current rate of decline, Istock would have no sales at all in about 2 years ahead. It would seem that they have finally woken up to the danger that was staring them in the face.
You can trace the root of this issue back to the introduction of the RC system in September 2010. That's when Istock lost their sense of business and the trust of their contributors. Sales have been falling ever since. The inumerous price increases, to compensate for the falling sales, could only ever work for so long.
Reducing prices now won't be enough to save the business. The tiny royalties currently on offer won't be enough to tempt independent contributors to upload new content. For independent contributors Istock are now just another mid-tier agency. If they want new content they'll need to be offering royalties of 30%+ to to make it worthwhile.
-
The only way this could work in favor of IS is that with the price cut people are going to miss their RC targets and the cost reduction on paying less royalties is greater than the loss of revenue due to the price cuts.
Mathematically impossible. They must be losing 40-50% on inde sales. They only pay a 15-20% in commission. The most they will claw back by cutting levels will be 2 or 3%.
The only thing that seems to make any sense at all is that they want to lure buyers back with promises of cheap material, then catapult them up into the Signature or Vetta collections by hiding all the cheaper stuff. But I doubt if it will work since it depends on buyers being very stupid indeed.
But you dont know what % they might gain in sales from new customers or more DLs at that price. If their sales go up significantly, doesnt that work out in their benefit down the line?
EDIT: I really wish people stop voting down posts for the sake of voting down posts. Asking a question seems to be problematic for some. I also see people get voted down for thanking someone or just writing up facts. Whats the use of voting down normal comments in a discussion?
-
Reducing prices now won't be enough to save the business. The tiny royalties currently on offer won't be enough to tempt independent contributors to upload new content. For independent contributors Istock are now just another mid-tier agency. If they want new content they'll need to be offering royalties of 30%+ to to make it worthwhile.
exactly
-
it seems like they're scrambling to create profit growth, and despite evidence that their decisions have seriously handicapped the business, their strategy continues to be sacrificing the well-being of dedicated contributors and image quality = the very things that iStock's success was contingent on. I don't think there's any going back now.
Reducing prices now won't be enough to save the business. The tiny royalties currently on offer won't be enough to tempt independent contributors to upload new content. For independent contributors Istock are now just another mid-tier agency. If they want new content they'll need to be offering royalties of 30%+ to to make it worthwhile.
I agree, though I think you're giving them too much credit right now. I think they believed their strategies over the last few years would not only save but grow business. they've seriously underestimated both their contributors and their buyers.
-
Reducing prices now won't be enough to save the business. The tiny royalties currently on offer won't be enough to tempt independent contributors to upload new content. For independent contributors Istock are now just another mid-tier agency. If they want new content they'll need to be offering royalties of 30%+ to to make it worthwhile.
exactly
It will take a lot more than 30% to win many independents back. At that rate they will still have of the worst RPDs in the market. Also, the preferential treatment of exclusives, the google drive give-away, the tedious uploading process, the forced migration to Thinkstock and Photos.com, and their general lack of respect for contributors, will all remain major obstacles for many independents.
But they will never give independents 30%. Instead they give 15% if any independent content is sold through Getty...
-
My Mum always says, "It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt, which is what the previous (male) incumbent did.
My grandmother used to say the same thing.
-
You can trace the root of this issue back to the introduction of the RC system in September 2010.
That's when I stopped uploading to iStock. I've since noticed my PP sales have been much better than iStock sales so I've started uploading again to take advantage of the relaxed upload limits and get some more files into the PP. However, that doesn't mean I have any confidence in them or trust their credibility.
-
You can trace the root of this issue back to the introduction of the RC system in September 2010.
That's when I stopped uploading to iStock. I've since noticed my PP sales have been much better than iStock sales so I've started uploading again to take advantage of the relaxed upload limits and get some more files into the PP. However, that doesn't mean I have any confidence in them or trust their credibility.
sorry but is that dumbest thing I have read for a while, you are uploading thinking of PP? thank god you don't upload much...
-
iStock is gonna rock you just wait and see :-) I like drinking Kool Aid so come an join me. I am exclusive so yes I want it to rock!
-
The only way this could work in favor of IS is that with the price cut people are going to miss their RC targets and the cost reduction on paying less royalties is greater than the loss of revenue due to the price cuts.
Mathematically impossible. They must be losing 40-50% on inde sales. They only pay a 15-20% in commission. The most they will claw back by cutting levels will be 2 or 3%.
The only thing that seems to make any sense at all is that they want to lure buyers back with promises of cheap material, then catapult them up into the Signature or Vetta collections by hiding all the cheaper stuff. But I doubt if it will work since it depends on buyers being very stupid indeed.
But you dont know what % they might gain in sales from new customers or more DLs at that price. If their sales go up significantly, doesnt that work out in their benefit down the line?
You would need a massive induction of sales that wouldn't otherwise have happened, pushing up overall sales by several hundred percent. At that point, would there be any loss in "levels" for independents - don't know, can't be bothered to try to work out the maths.
Anyway, the scenario is unrealistic, in my opinion.
-
iStock is gonna rock you just wait and see :-) I like drinking Kool Aid so come an join me. I am exclusive so yes I want it to rock!
that is so pathetic, you don't need to be professional like Yuri but at least don't talk like a f***** kid, be careful because your next payout can be candies, heck you would love it!
-
iStock is gonna rock you just wait and see :-) I like drinking Kool Aid so come an join me. I am exclusive so yes I want it to rock!
No it's not. IS is effectively dead in the water isn't it? Reckon they'll be spending the $30M+ that SS do on marketing or matching the $10M+ that SS spend on R&D? Can't see it myself. Even if they had the money they'd probably waste it through incompetence if history is a guide.
SS are still growing and still recruiting. IS will probably be letting more staff go as revenue is slashed due to the price reductions.
You can either continue to drink the Kool Aid, for as long as those shrinking funds allow, or you can start making plans for the future.
-
SS are still growing and still recruiting. IS will probably be letting more staff go as revenue is slashed due to the price reductions.
Your prediction may or may not come about, but on a POI, iS is also actively recruiting:
https://gettyimages-openhire.silkroad.com/epostings/index.cfm?fuseaction=app.allpositions&company_id=15531&version=1 (https://gettyimages-openhire.silkroad.com/epostings/index.cfm?fuseaction=app.allpositions&company_id=15531&version=1)
-
It was very interesting in the discussion between SS and financial institutions that it pointed to its small portion of overall market share, as well as to the potential for growing the market.
If it can grow market share in a growing market then it has a good many years of overall growth ahead.
-
It was very interesting in the discussion between SS and financial institutions that it pointed to its small portion of overall market share, as well as to the potential for growing the market.
If it can grow market share in a growing market then it has a good many years of overall growth ahead.
I would take the figures quoted by SS, on the assumed size of the potential stock image market, with an absolutely gigantic sack of salt.
If Getty, which obviously includes IS and all their relatively exclusive sports editorial revenue and all the exclusive historical collections that they own, can barely muster $900K in revenue ... where the heck is the other $4-5B that SS assume must exist?
There's Getty ... then there's Corbis ... or is it really SS next? Either way it is difficult to conceive that the total market for stock images and footage is worth much more than $2B, quite possibly less. Even then a sizable chunk of that market will be exclusive specialist niches (like the UK's National Trust for example) that SS can never hope to penetrate.
SS is expected to generate $200M in 2013. Personally I doubt that the market available to them is ever likely to allow them to exceed $500M, probably a lot less. My guess is that SS's growth will flatten out before they reach $300M.
-
iStock is gonna rock you just wait and see :-) I like drinking Kool Aid so come an join me. I am exclusive so yes I want it to rock!
i wasn't sure if this was serious, but I'm not sure I believe it. I think their downfall was when they alienated contributors. There was nobody left to insulate them from disgruntled buyers or anybody else that was upset. It all kind of blew up in their face, and it will be tough to get those contributors back on board to put it all back together.
It's a shame too because their bungling messed up the balance of power in the micro world. Shutterstock doesn't really have a viable competitor, and that doesn't seem like a healthy situation.
-
You can trace the root of this issue back to the introduction of the RC system in September 2010.
That's when I stopped uploading to iStock. I've since noticed my PP sales have been much better than iStock sales so I've started uploading again to take advantage of the relaxed upload limits and get some more files into the PP. However, that doesn't mean I have any confidence in them or trust their credibility.
sorry but is that dumbest thing I have read for a while, you are uploading thinking of PP? thank god you don't upload much...
Since they're 'lypse images they can only go to iStock. That's part of the agreement for participating. Also the 'lypse model release has been very carefully crafted so the photos cannot be used anywhere else.
-
You can trace the root of this issue back to the introduction of the RC system in September 2010.
That's when I stopped uploading to iStock. I've since noticed my PP sales have been much better than iStock sales so I've started uploading again to take advantage of the relaxed upload limits and get some more files into the PP. However, that doesn't mean I have any confidence in them or trust their credibility.
sorry but is that dumbest thing I have read for a while, you are uploading thinking of PP? thank god you don't upload much...
Since they're 'lypse images they can only go to iStock. That's part of the agreement for participating. Also the 'lypse model release has been very carefully crafted so the photos cannot be used anywhere else.
aaaaaah of course, it was indeed a life changing, happy for you! :D
-
...
7. Think what is other way to bring customers to fair deal for you and our community...
Symbiostock! - 100% royalty ;)
I really don't know how to make this solution easy and profitable...
Just wait. It's the future... 8)
-
The only way this could work in favor of IS is that with the price cut people are going to miss their RC targets and the cost reduction on paying less royalties is greater than the loss of revenue due to the price cuts.
Mathematically impossible. They must be losing 40-50% on inde sales. They only pay a 15-20% in commission. The most they will claw back by cutting levels will be 2 or 3%.
The only thing that seems to make any sense at all is that they want to lure buyers back with promises of cheap material, then catapult them up into the Signature or Vetta collections by hiding all the cheaper stuff. But I doubt if it will work since it depends on buyers being very stupid indeed.
But you dont know what % they might gain in sales from new customers or more DLs at that price. If their sales go up significantly, doesnt that work out in their benefit down the line?
You would need a massive induction of sales that wouldn't otherwise have happened, pushing up overall sales by several hundred percent. At that point, would there be any loss in "levels" for independents - don't know, can't be bothered to try to work out the maths.
Anyway, the scenario is unrealistic, in my opinion.
Fair enough, makes sense. Basically then the lowering of pricing makes no sense.
-
Which file is worth 10x the other file?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2493233-united-states-flag.php?st=c805381[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2493233-united-states-flag.php?st=c805381[/url])
or
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2388290-beautiflul-huge-us-flag.php?st=f2a69da[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2388290-beautiflul-huge-us-flag.php?st=f2a69da[/url])
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.
I have a small port at iStock but seemed to get a chance to move pix to P+ pretty often and every time I moved one of my photos to P+ it sold MORE often rather than less often. The number of sales as well as what I made each time the photo was licensed would increase significantly. All my P+ photos turned into my best-sellers, even if they hadn't sold much (or even at all) on iS before becoming P+. Now they are dumped into the Main collection and while still selling, my share is about 1/3rd less ( "Large" files are selling for less than "Medium" size files were in May).
My guess is that most buyers work for companies that already have plans with iS and these employees don't care if a photo costs them $5 or $10 more, but my loss of $1 or more on every sale will add up well before their $5 savings per photo becomes noticeable. Meantime, their bosses will start to care if they're spending $10 for two photos one week and $400 for two photos the next week. Making the Main collection cost less only serves to highlight the highest prices. Wouldn't it make more sense to raise all prices? In business, rule #1 is that if you're selling fewer items, you need to charge more per item.
So frustrating.
-
The market is a little different online so we will see if these changes are enough to bring iStock back to what it was in the neat future. Funny everyone wants their images moved up in the higher priced collections but everyone complains about how iStock is to expensive. RC's are another matter.
-
The market is a little different online so we will see if these changes are enough to bring iStock back to what it was in the neat future. Funny everyone wants their images moved up in the higher priced collections but everyone complains about how iStock is to expensive. RC's are another matter.
You're confusing two things. The high price bands have been criticised for being too high and the low price band is being criticised for being too low. In effect, people are saying that the prices should have been optimised at the level which retained buyers and maximised the return to suppliers, rather than selling half the collection at very low prices and another part at way above what buyers are likely to view as a fair market price.
I wonder if the utter chaos which seems to have engulfed iStock is a tribute to just how efficiently Hellman and Friedman took a damaged business and then proceeded to scrape out every bit of juicy goodness, selling on the husk at a profit beforethe buyers realised how little goodness was left inside.
-
You can trace the root of this issue back to the introduction of the RC system in September 2010.
That's when I stopped uploading to iStock. I've since noticed my PP sales have been much better than iStock sales so I've started uploading again to take advantage of the relaxed upload limits and get some more files into the PP. However, that doesn't mean I have any confidence in them or trust their credibility.
sorry but is that dumbest thing I have read for a while, you are uploading thinking of PP? thank god you don't upload much...
Louis, you are completely right!
Story about PP and RC in this moment is totally idiotic... iStock took me 60% or more in a one day from already miserable piece, so what I have to do?
Work more to reach their stupid RC and be happy from change from 16% to 17%... F.... of!
iStock want customers, so our obligation is to redirect customers to better deals for us! That hurts them, not removing our portfolios!
Someone gave you -1, so I feel obligation to fix it with my voice.... ;)
P.S.
People posting here some sayings of their grandmothers and parents...
So here is mine, I think completely usable for iStock crew...
My grandmother says: "You can do what you like, but not as long as you want..."
P.S./P.S.
Where is Lisafx?
She attacked me few days ago that I was not doing enough in last campaign against IS... With no apologies even with my explanations after ...
So, I feel obligation to be sarcastic once more
Lisa, one advice, please remove 11% of your portfolio from IS, they will probably feel pain after... :-[
-
Borg, I hope you're not suggesting that I gave Luis a -1 rating because I can assure you I did not. My grandmother also used to say "if you can't say something good about somebody, don't say anything at all".
-
Borg, I hope you're not suggesting that I gave Luis a -1 rating because I can assure you I did not. My grandmother also used to say "if you can't say something good about somebody, don't say anything at all".
No, that is not my intention, for sure... Sorry if it is looks like... We are old friends here, me and Louis...
This is some kind of internal joke or usual support for similar ideas...
I comment only thoughts here, never people, if they are not pointing their finger in my direction...
Regards!
-
A little something from Sean
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/02/buyer-beware-the-bait-and-switch/ (http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/02/buyer-beware-the-bait-and-switch/)
-
A little something from Sean
[url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/02/buyer-beware-the-bait-and-switch/[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/02/buyer-beware-the-bait-and-switch/[/url])
Oh, that's so funny. I noticed earlier that that file had sold and wondered why. I guess Sean licensed it, although he has had to use the actual iS page to illustrate his point.
Also 'by the way' highlighting the vast change in iS acceptance standards. I'm sure he chose the image carefully.
That said, I don't find this scheme so much a bait and switch as the old one. I can't remember exactly, but there was a genuine Free Images site which iS took over. When you googled Free Images, the site did offer one or two free images from the old site, (called something like sxchg.hu, but I can't remember) mixed in with a lot of iS images. When I said that was bait and switch, most people totally disagreed with me.
Just shows.
-
A little something from Sean
[url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/02/buyer-beware-the-bait-and-switch/[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/02/buyer-beware-the-bait-and-switch/[/url])
Excellent and well written.
I think Getty will soon realise it was much better to have Sean inside their tent and pissing out ... rather than outside the tent and pissing in.
-
Without reading that page I wouldn't have understood how the changes really effected anything. RC was a trick to pay less to artists, now they are they are diddling with it to reduce our returns and future returns. Never seems to stop, does it?
A little something from Sean
[url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/02/buyer-beware-the-bait-and-switch/[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/02/buyer-beware-the-bait-and-switch/[/url])
-
Without reading that page I wouldn't have understood how the changes really effected anything. RC was a trick to pay less to artists, now they are they are diddling with it to reduce our returns and future returns. Never seems to stop, does it?
Nothing new re diddling. They introduced RCs, then forced all indie files into the PP and mailblasted their biggest buyers encouraging them to switch from iS to TS, and don't pay RCs on PP sales. Given that some indies have reported that they make more $$ from the PP than they do on iS, that's a lot of lost RCs.
-
Haven't credits been around $1.5 for a while? I don't really see much of a bait and switch.
-
[
-
Good post Sean and that is how business works. The fact is that buyers are paying less for the main collection no matter how you slice the pie. Using credits for brand loyalty just makes sense. Most of my sales are from credits very few in % are from cash. iStock knows what that percentage is. SS makes you buy a credit package as well and can play the same game. These prices are still a lot more manageable then they were. All in all still a good move by iStock and the exclusive at this point. If you are non-exclusive that is another story!
-
A little something from Sean
[url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/02/buyer-beware-the-bait-and-switch/[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/02/buyer-beware-the-bait-and-switch/[/url])
Excellent and well written.
I think Getty will soon realise it was much better to have Sean inside their tent and pissing out ... rather than outside the tent and pissing in.
Ok, just to be devils advocate I want to ask you this. Please note I am not trying to diss anyone here, not you, not Sean. Just devils advocate:
Would Getty care about Sean now, considering they let him go in the first place? Do you think Sean's blog will be mentioned in the Getty boardroom? They let Sean go, and brought in Yuri. Couldnt that be working out in Getty's advantage? Do you think Getty cares in which direction Sean is pissing? Or that it can or will harm them?
Dont take this comment the wrong way, its not meant like that.
-
Haven't credits been around $1.5 for a while? I don't really see much of a bait and switch.
The bait is the "1 credit image" pricing. The switch is the extended commitment or $5 per credit cash price.
-
Would Getty care about Sean now, considering they let him go in the first place? Do you think Sean's blog will be mentioned in the Getty boardroom? They let Sean go, and brought in Yuri. Couldnt that be working out in Getty's advantage? Do you think Getty cares in which direction Sean is pissing? Or that it can or will harm them?
I'm not trying to influence Getty in the least. I'm trying to edumacate buyers so they don't miss these little changes ;) .
If I was a buyer, I would certainly go request a refund of the difference for anything purchased in the last month. Despite:
"You are constructing a conspiracy related to having Customers request refunds on files only to re-download the same files because the pricing has changed. We have measures in place to monitor this type of activity. We also monitor the number of refunds a Customer requests so we can ensure they aren't performing anything dodgy on the site. "
How is _that_ dodgy? If pricing on something in the real world changes, you can go get the difference refunded within a reasonable amount of time. I would think IS would be falling all over themselves trying to get good customer goodwill if a buyer came back disgruntled. To castigate them for reasonable behavior is not good business.
-
Sean must continue doing this, more and more, being outside iStock doesn't mean he lost "power" and for sure a ton of buyers follow his work so I believe we can all take advantage from his blogs, I believe that Getty is more worried with Sean than with Herg fighting for an EL license (just for comparison)
-
Would Getty care about Sean now, considering they let him go in the first place? Do you think Sean's blog will be mentioned in the Getty boardroom? They let Sean go, and brought in Yuri. Couldnt that be working out in Getty's advantage? Do you think Getty cares in which direction Sean is pissing? Or that it can or will harm them?
I'm not trying to influence Getty in the least. I'm trying to edumacate buyers so they don't miss these little changes ;) .
Sure, thats great, if there is one person who can do that its you. I was just wondering about Joe's comment if Getty would be bothered by what you are writing. If they dont care about the thousands of contributors, what difference is one man to them?
By the way, did you pick that particular image you used as example in your blog on purpose? ;)
-
It's making the rounds :)
http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/strategy-changes-at-istockphoto-will-affect-all-stock-photographers/ (http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/distribution-channels/strategy-changes-at-istockphoto-will-affect-all-stock-photographers/)
-
]
-
Sean must continue doing this, more and more, being outside iStock doesn't mean he lost "power" and for sure a ton of buyers follow his work so I believe we can all take advantage from his blogs, I believe that Getty is more worried with Sean than with Herg fighting for an EL license (just for comparison)
Huh? I think Getty is more worried about aliens coming to Earth and starting a rival agency than Herg fighting for an EL from Dreamstime.
have you read my post? oh please
-
Haven't credits been around $1.5 for a while? I don't really see much of a bait and switch.
Seriously?
The bait and switch is the assumption that someone can buy that photo for something resembling 1-5 dollars. Even if credits are priced at $1.50 per, that's reasonably close. What isn't close is the cash pricing:
XS - $6 / credit
S - $4 / credit
M - $4.66 / credit
L - $4.75 / credit
XL - $4.20 / credit
THAT is bait and switch.
Oddly, the cash pricing per credit for Signature files is much more reasonable (though still inexplicably higher at some sizes than others):
XS - $1.80 / credit
S - $1.85 / credit
M - $1.75 / credit
L - $1.70 / credit
XL - $1.80 / credit
-
]
-
Sean must continue doing this, more and more, being outside iStock doesn't mean he lost "power" and for sure a ton of buyers follow his work so I believe we can all take advantage from his blogs, I believe that Getty is more worried with Sean than with Herg fighting for an EL license (just for comparison)
Huh? I think Getty is more worried about aliens coming to Earth and starting a rival agency than Herg fighting for an EL from Dreamstime.
have you read my post? oh please
Yeah, here I'll bold what you wrote so you can read it. Maybe I'm missing something, why would Getty care at all if Herg gets $20 from Dreamstime for an EL or not?
try again
curious I am having minus for saying try again, learned this one with you tickstock ohhh ;D
-
By the way, did you pick that particular image you used as example in your blog on purpose? ;)
That image is one that would NEVER have been allowed in the collection until now, even the very first year IS was started. It's shameful and sickening to see something like that for sale as stock (unless as a deliberate example of poor photography).
-
The bait and switch is the assumption that someone can buy that photo for something resembling 1-5 dollars. Even if credits are priced at $1.50 per, that's reasonably close. What isn't close is the cash pricing:
XS - $6 / credit
S - $4 / credit
M - $4.66 / credit
L - $4.75 / credit
XL - $4.20 / credit
THAT is bait and switch.
Oddly, the cash pricing per credit for Signature files is much more reasonable (though still inexplicably higher at some sizes than others):
XS - $1.80 / credit
S - $1.85 / credit
M - $1.75 / credit
L - $1.70 / credit
XL - $1.80 / credit
This is where the independents are thrown under the bus. They're used as a draw to get buyers in with the main collection pricing, however, the independents make substantially less (from the main collection) then exclusives (in the higher tiers), and if cash is used for convenience, instead of getting 3 RCs for someone spending $6 (normally 3-4 credits), they get 1.
-
Haven't credits been around $1.5 for a while? I don't really see much of a bait and switch.
Seriously?
The bait and switch is the assumption that someone can buy that photo for something resembling 1-5 dollars. Even if credits are priced at $1.50 per, that's reasonably close. What isn't close is the cash pricing:
XS - $6 / credit
S - $4 / credit
M - $4.66 / credit
L - $4.75 / credit
XL - $4.20 / credit
THAT is bait and switch.
Oddly, the cash pricing per credit for Signature files is much more reasonable (though still inexplicably higher at some sizes than others):
XS - $1.80 / credit
S - $1.85 / credit
M - $1.75 / credit
L - $1.70 / credit
XL - $1.80 / credit
But, it's always been that way with the credits. Shouldn't this have been written like 5 years ago? I'm not a fan of credits, but I'm just not seeing the big revelation here.
-
Haven't credits been around $1.5 for a while? I don't really see much of a bait and switch.
Seriously?
The bait and switch is the assumption that someone can buy that photo for something resembling 1-5 dollars. Even if credits are priced at $1.50 per, that's reasonably close. What isn't close is the cash pricing:
XS - $6 / credit
S - $4 / credit
M - $4.66 / credit
L - $4.75 / credit
XL - $4.20 / credit
THAT is bait and switch.
Oddly, the cash pricing per credit for Signature files is much more reasonable (though still inexplicably higher at some sizes than others):
XS - $1.80 / credit
S - $1.85 / credit
M - $1.75 / credit
L - $1.70 / credit
XL - $1.80 / credit
But, it's always been that way with the credits. Shouldn't this have been written like 5 years ago? I'm not a fan of credits, but I'm just not seeing the big revelation here.
When were credits EVER priced at anything close to the range of $4-$6 per credit?
-
When were credits EVER priced at anything close to the range of $4-$6 per credit?
Exactly - never. They were always priced around the top of the regular most expensive credit pack pricing.
-
Sean, I think you are wrong - as well as unhelpful - to urge buyers to cancel past purchases and repurchase at the new, cut prices.
If images have been used at an agreed rate then it would be illegal to demand a refund. It's like urging shoppers to return their half-used goods to a supermarket if they appear on special offer months after being bought.
-
But, it's always been that way with the credits. Shouldn't this have been written like 5 years ago? I'm not a fan of credits, but I'm just not seeing the big revelation here.
Same here.
-
Sean, I think you are wrong - as well as unhelpful - to urge buyers to cancel past purchases and repurchase at the new, cut prices.
If images have been used at an agreed rate then it would be illegal to demand a refund. It's like urging shoppers to return their half-used goods to a supermarket if they appear on special offer months after being bought.
It's not unusual for companies to honor lower prices for a period of time. For example, if you buy clothing at Target, wear it, and then it goes on sale, you just take the receipt back in and they refund they difference.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Global/Low-Price-Guarantee/pcmcat290300050002.c?id=pcmcat290300050002 (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Global/Low-Price-Guarantee/pcmcat290300050002.c?id=pcmcat290300050002)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_468502_abtvlpg?nodeId=200726210 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_468502_abtvlpg?nodeId=200726210)
http://www.lowes.com/cd_Appliance+Advantage_290232167_ (http://www.lowes.com/cd_Appliance+Advantage_290232167_)
-
But, it's always been that way with the credits. Shouldn't this have been written like 5 years ago? I'm not a fan of credits, but I'm just not seeing the big revelation here.
Same here.
I'm sorry. I'm afraid I can't point out the 1 credit/$1.50 vs. $6 cash price _new_ discrepancy any clearer.
-
]
-
Sean, I think you are wrong - as well as unhelpful - to urge buyers to cancel past purchases and repurchase at the new, cut prices.
If images have been used at an agreed rate then it would be illegal to demand a refund. It's like urging shoppers to return their half-used goods to a supermarket if they appear on special offer months after being bought.
It's not unusual for companies to honor lower prices for a period of time. For example, if you buy clothing at Target, wear it, and then it goes on sale, you just take the receipt back in and they refund they difference.
[url]http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Global/Low-Price-Guarantee/pcmcat290300050002.c?id=pcmcat290300050002[/url] ([url]http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Global/Low-Price-Guarantee/pcmcat290300050002.c?id=pcmcat290300050002[/url])
[url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_468502_abtvlpg?nodeId=200726210[/url] ([url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_468502_abtvlpg?nodeId=200726210[/url])
[url]http://www.lowes.com/cd_Appliance+Advantage_290232167_[/url] ([url]http://www.lowes.com/cd_Appliance+Advantage_290232167_[/url])
Will you be happily writing iS a cheque if they refund some of yours?
-
Will you be happily writing iS a cheque if they refund some of yours?
Lol, unfortunately, since we have no agreement, I'm absolved of that responsibility.
-
]
-
Out of curiosity, what is Stocksy's policy about past sales if a discount is found later?
http://www.stocksy.com/legal?id=13 (http://www.stocksy.com/legal?id=13)
All purchases are final and non-refundable.
Eazy-peezy :)
-
]
-
In your theory you can never issue a voucher without having to compensate the customer that bought an image prior to issuing the voucher.
I bought a Blue Host annual subscription for 6.99 per month and two weeks later its on offer for 4.99. Yes I am bummed I missed the promotion, but I cant blame blue host for it, can I? Thats how these things work.
EDIT: Tickstock is right.
-
Your trying to hard again Tickstock. Let it go. In your theory you can never issue a voucher without having to compensate the customer that bought an image prior to issuing the voucher.
Actually, that seems to be Sean's theory. At least for other people's sales.
-
]
-
Your trying to hard again Tickstock. Let it go. In your theory you can never issue a voucher without having to compensate the customer that bought an image prior to issuing the voucher.
Actually, that seems to be Sean's theory. At least for other people's sales.
Yep, that's what I was pointing out. Sean seems to think Istock should offer refunds when prices drop but for Stocksy no refunds with a :).
Stocksy's policy has always been to not offer refunds. iStock's policy has been to offer refunds. Buyers expect refunds from iStock and don't expect them from Stocksy.
-
]
-
Sean, I think you are wrong - as well as unhelpful - to urge buyers to cancel past purchases and repurchase at the new, cut prices.
If images have been used at an agreed rate then it would be illegal to demand a refund. It's like urging shoppers to return their half-used goods to a supermarket if they appear on special offer months after being bought.
It's not unusual for companies to honor lower prices for a period of time. For example, if you buy clothing at Target, wear it, and then it goes on sale, you just take the receipt back in and they refund they difference.
[url]http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Global/Low-Price-Guarantee/pcmcat290300050002.c?id=pcmcat290300050002[/url] ([url]http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Global/Low-Price-Guarantee/pcmcat290300050002.c?id=pcmcat290300050002[/url])
[url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_468502_abtvlpg?nodeId=200726210[/url] ([url]http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_468502_abtvlpg?nodeId=200726210[/url])
[url]http://www.lowes.com/cd_Appliance+Advantage_290232167_[/url] ([url]http://www.lowes.com/cd_Appliance+Advantage_290232167_[/url])
Actually, those are not offering discounts if the vendor drops prices later on, they are guaranteeing to match any rival's (or a selected list of rivals') price, which is a totally different thing.
The fact you have chosen to use such irrelevant examples to support your case is evidence of how weak it is.
(I couldn't work out the point of the third link - but the first two were the "not knowingly undersold" sort of offer.)
-
Your trying to hard again Tickstock. Let it go. In your theory you can never issue a voucher without having to compensate the customer that bought an image prior to issuing the voucher.
Actually, that seems to be Sean's theory. At least for other people's sales.
You are correct, I was responding to the last part of that discussion when it was about Stocksy. My example of Blue Host actually supports tickstock's argument. I edited my comment.
-
Stocksy's policy has always been to not offer refunds. iStock's policy has been to offer refunds. Buyers expect refunds from iStock and don't expect them from Stocksy.
Yep.
-
Actually, those are not offering discounts if the vendor drops prices later on, they are guaranteeing to match any rival's (or a selected list of rivals') price, which is a totally different thing.
The fact you have chosen to use such irrelevant examples to support your case is evidence of how weak it is.
(I couldn't work out the point of the third link - but the first two were the "not knowingly undersold" sort of offer.)
Sorry, you'll have to read closer, as well as my example for Target ( or pretty much any other retailer ).
-
But, it's always been that way with the credits. Shouldn't this have been written like 5 years ago? I'm not a fan of credits, but I'm just not seeing the big revelation here.
Well, one the "minor" changes is that there seems to be no small credit packages anymore. There used to be 12 credits, for some time even 6 credits for $9.99 or something like that. Nowadays it's 30 credits for $49.99 - this is excluding a large number of buyers from buying through credit packages and having to buy single images.
That is on top of the huge discrepancy between credit price and single image price for the main collection files.
Both of them are very new.
-
]
-
But, it's always been that way with the credits. Shouldn't this have been written like 5 years ago? I'm not a fan of credits, but I'm just not seeing the big revelation here.
Well, one the "minor" changes is that there seems to be no small credit packages anymore. There used to be 12 credits, for some time even 6 credits for $9.99 or something like that. Nowadays it's 30 credits for $49.99 - this is excluding a large number of buyers from buying through credit packages and having to buy single images.
That is on top of the huge discrepancy between credit price and single image price for the main collection files.
Both of them are very new.
I did notice that, and I agree. That seems pretty high for the smallest credit package, but I gave up shopping at IS a long time ago because of all the nonsense.
-
Your trying to hard again Tickstock. Let it go. In your theory you can never issue a voucher without having to compensate the customer that bought an image prior to issuing the voucher.
Actually, that seems to be Sean's theory. At least for other people's sales.
Yep, that's what I was pointing out. Sean seems to think Istock should offer refunds when prices drop but for Stocksy no refunds with a :).
Stocksy's policy has always been to not offer refunds. iStock's policy has been to offer refunds. Buyers expect refunds from iStock and don't expect them from Stocksy.
Istock's policy has never been to offer refunds because of price changes AFAIK.
Where has iStock said that? I may have missed it so please point me in the right direction.
They have said that refunds are 'discretionary' and, in that vein, that they want to 'provide a customer experience that encourages them to return.'
So, if a good customer is upset that a file they just purchased has suddenly dropped considerably in price you don't think iStock would issue at least a partial refund? I don't really know if they would or not and neither do you. They seem to consider them on a case by case basis.
-
refunds for digital files is absurd. There is really no way to constantly police the file after it is purchased.
-
.
-
wow :o
same image:
02/07/2013 12:19 AM MDT Small Regular $0.20 USD
06/06/2013 10:22 AM MDT Small Regular $1.30 USD
only submitting vectors from now on
until they change vector prices.
-
But, it's always been that way with the credits. Shouldn't this have been written like 5 years ago? I'm not a fan of credits, but I'm just not seeing the big revelation here.
Well, one the "minor" changes is that there seems to be no small credit packages anymore. There used to be 12 credits, for some time even 6 credits for $9.99 or something like that. Nowadays it's 30 credits for $49.99 - this is excluding a large number of buyers from buying through credit packages and having to buy single images.
That is on top of the huge discrepancy between credit price and single image price for the main collection files.
Both of them are very new.
I ahven't followed their advertising but it wouldn't surprise if they balance that by offering huge discounts or time limited entry packages. getty has a history of working with high list prices that they then lower drastically, especially when their sales team calls the client.
Without the high list prices it is probably very difficult for sales staff to sell direct.
-
I ahven't followed their advertising but it wouldn't surprise if they balance that by offering huge discounts or time limited entry packages. getty has a history of working with high list prices that they then lower drastically, especially when their sales team calls the client.
Without the high list prices it is probably very difficult for sales staff to sell direct.
I was talking about the single image sales and the size of the smallest credit package. This affects only small and one-time buyers. Those are not the ones that any sales people are talking to because they spend 20 or 50 dollars, nor will they receive any discounts beyond the usual 10 or 20 per cent published every second week.
To me it looks like they are making those main images much cheaper for the big clients with large credit packages but still quite expensive for the small clients buying only one or a few images. I don't mind this, I just noted it. And it fits very well in my personal idea that Getty does not really understand (or is not interested in) the small buyers.
-
I wonder if "consultations with customers and months of research" proved that buyers love to go through pages of crap to find one suitable image.
Looking at new images I feel like I visited MostPhotos by mistake.
-
http://e-strategyblog.com/2013/06/istockphoto-customer-service-fail-video (http://e-strategyblog.com/2013/06/istockphoto-customer-service-fail-video)
-
Doesn't Getty make offers like "300 free credits" if you buy a thinkstock subscription?
Having a nominal high price for credits on the website, makes offers like these very attractive.
Does anyone know the value of those free credits for contributors? What do we earn, if the client gets the credits "free"?
I agree that they won't run after clients for a 50 dollar package, but they can litter the internet with first time buyer discount codes.
But I see this as a way to enourage small time buyers to go to photos.com.
http://de.photos.com/products?isource=viewplansHome (http://de.photos.com/products?isource=viewplansHome)
They have different plattforms, so they can push photos.com for the budget conscious intrnet customer. The problem here for me would be that I don't consider the ite by itself very competitive to the bigger agencies out there.
And of course contributors only get 20% or less royalty.
But they have an agency for every price point. Just personally I believe that fragmenting your marketing leads to overall lower brand value on the internet. Obviously they are all competing with themselves and against other agencies.
-
Doesn't Getty make offers like "300 free credits" if you buy a thinkstock subscription?
Yes:http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354608&messageid=6911558 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354608&messageid=6911558)[/url]
Like you and George, I would like official word on whether we get any sort of recompense when they give our work away, which we are not allowed to do with our own work. I fear I already know the answer.
-
But I see this as a way to enourage small time buyers to go to photos.com.
[url]http://de.photos.com/products?isource=viewplansHome[/url] ([url]http://de.photos.com/products?isource=viewplansHome[/url])
They have different plattforms, so they can push photos.com for the budget conscious intrnet customer. The problem here for me would be that I don't consider the ite by itself very competitive to the bigger agencies out there.
And of course contributors only get 20% or less royalty.
Exactly my thoughts, photos.com for small buyers. And now adding a lot of images (quality aside) makes them quite a bit more competitive in the mid term, all those non-exclusive files will hit photos.com
With regards to the 20%, we make less than that if iStock sells them directly. ;)
-
Does anyone know the value of those free credits for contributors? What do we earn, if the client gets the credits "free"?
I am pretty sure that they are still valued at $1 like they used to be as long as I remember.
-
Does anyone know the value of those free credits for contributors? What do we earn, if the client gets the credits "free"?
I am pretty sure that they are still valued at $1 like they used to be as long as I remember.
Thanks for that. I had assumed $1 less.
-
I know it's been a holiday week in US, but it should have similar effect on all US based agencies. And here we are - my Istock earnings for the first week of July are lower than earnings on DT. For the first time ever. Wow.
I still need to see totals for the month, but right now it looks like I've been robbed of some 25% of my monthly income.
-
For me, DT changed to a funny pattern since their last price restructuring: I'll get lots of subscription sales (same as before), than I get a big one (say 4-5$)... What I hardly get anymore are $0.21 or $0.46 regular sales. The net effect of this is that DT remains on par in with previous years in my projections for 2013.
FT on the other hand is on the way to make me one sixth of what it made in 2010, my last sale there was not quite a month ago :P
-
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 (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.
-
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 (http://www.advertisinglawyer.ca/advertising.htm)
In the UK, the Advertising Standards Agency http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/What-we-cover.aspx (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 (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.
-
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.
It also helps explain the difference between the credit and cash prices. (Though I suspect, without checking, that the cash prices might still be higher than they should be, based on a roughly $2/credit price.)
-
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.
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. "]"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]
[url]http://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2013/World-Consumer-Rights-Day.aspx[/url] ([url]http://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Media-Centre/2013/World-Consumer-Rights-Day.aspx[/url])
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 (http://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/canCodeOfAdStandards-feb2013.aspx#accuracy)
iS seems to be pushing that line a lot.
-
But what about 'only from iStock'?
iS seems to be pushing that line a lot.
Indeed. The entire front page is full of ... questionable claims. Besides the "only from iStock" one, that page also highlights Editors' Picks ("... highest quality files, handpicked ...") and Vetta ("... now bigger and better than ever ..."). Clearly they feel they have nothing to worry about.
-
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 (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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;D
-
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.
Is this true? It's always been 5 sales to raise the price. Did that change?
-
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
-
Charming. So now an XL sale that used to bring me $2 will now generate .75? That's all the incentive I need to start deleting content again. I deleted non-sellers and poor sellers two years ago; guess it's time to remove the 600 or so that remain. I'll miss the money; losing 1% of my stock income is gonna hurt!
-
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.
-
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.
And so the race to the bottom begins.