Author Topic: [ (Read 44723 times)

halfshag · « **Reply #50 on:** June 27, 2013, 18:18 »

Edited: I'll keep that comment to myself

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #51 on:** June 27, 2013, 18:19 »

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-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)

ShadySue · « **Reply #52 on:** June 27, 2013, 18:23 »

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

tickstock · « **Reply #53 on:** June 27, 2013, 18:27 »

tickstock · « **Reply #54 on:** June 27, 2013, 18:28 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #55 on:** June 27, 2013, 18:35 »

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"?

ShadySue · « **Reply #56 on:** June 27, 2013, 18:38 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 18:27

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #57 on:** June 27, 2013, 18:40 »

tickstock · « **Reply #58 on:** June 27, 2013, 18:41 »

tickstock · « **Reply #59 on:** June 27, 2013, 18:43 »

Mantis · « **Reply #60 on:** June 27, 2013, 18:44 »

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #61 on:** June 27, 2013, 18:50 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 18:40

Quote from: ShadySue on June 27, 2013, 18:35
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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #62 on:** June 27, 2013, 18:52 »

Quote from: Mantis on June 27, 2013, 18:44

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #63 on:** June 27, 2013, 18:53 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 18:41

Quote from: ShadySue on June 27, 2013, 18:38
Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 18:27

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.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #64 on:** June 27, 2013, 18:57 »

we just got a massive pay cut, now we are thinking about the RCs, oh f****** misery

somethingpretentious · « **Reply #65 on:** June 27, 2013, 19:59 »

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?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #66 on:** June 27, 2013, 20:14 »

Quote from: somethingpretentious on June 27, 2013, 19:59

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

wds · « **Reply #67 on:** June 27, 2013, 21:16 »

Quote from: jsnover on June 27, 2013, 18:19

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-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)

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.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #68 on:** June 27, 2013, 21:40 »

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?

tickstock · « **Reply #69 on:** June 27, 2013, 21:52 »

luissantos84 · « **Reply #70 on:** June 27, 2013, 22:33 »

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

tickstock · « **Reply #71 on:** June 27, 2013, 22:54 »

JFP · « **Reply #72 on:** June 27, 2013, 22:56 »

Independents see a drop of RPD, but on another side, they do not have ANY upload limit anymore.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #73 on:** June 27, 2013, 22:58 »

Quote from: JFP on June 27, 2013, 22:56

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%

cthoman · « **Reply #74 on:** June 27, 2013, 23:57 »

Quote from: tickstock on June 27, 2013, 22:54

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: [ (Read 44723 times)

halfshag

Jo Ann Snover

ShadySue

tickstock

tickstock

ShadySue

ShadySue

tickstock

tickstock

tickstock

Mantis

ShadySue

ShadySue

ShadySue

luissantos84

somethingpretentious

luissantos84

wds

luissantos84

tickstock

luissantos84

tickstock

JFP

luissantos84

cthoman

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors