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?

Quote from: Ron on June 30, 2013, 13:51
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.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 30, 2013, 16:39
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+)

Quote from: Xanox on June 30, 2013, 17:35
... 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.

Quote from: borg on June 30, 2013, 19:55
...
7. Think what is other way to bring customers to fair deal for you and our community...

Symbiostock! - 100% royalty 

Quote from: jjneff on June 30, 2013, 16:50
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.

Quote from: cthoman on June 30, 2013, 20:05

Quote from: jjneff on June 30, 2013, 16:50
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.

Quote from: Pilens on June 30, 2013, 20:05

Quote from: borg on June 30, 2013, 19:55
...
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...

Quote from: SNP on June 30, 2013, 20:16
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.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 30, 2013, 16:39

Quote from: Ron on June 30, 2013, 13:51
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?

Quote from: gostwyck on June 30, 2013, 20:50
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

Quote from: gostwyck on June 30, 2013, 20:50

Quote from: SNP on June 30, 2013, 20:16
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.

Quote from: dolgachov on June 30, 2013, 21:01

Quote from: gostwyck on June 30, 2013, 20:50
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...

Quote from: ShadySue on June 30, 2013, 21:02
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.

Quote from: gostwyck on June 30, 2013, 20:50

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.

Quote from: LesHoward on July 01, 2013, 00:46

Quote from: gostwyck on June 30, 2013, 20:50

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!

Quote from: Ron on June 30, 2013, 20:55

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 30, 2013, 16:39

Quote from: Ron on June 30, 2013, 13:51
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.

Quote from: jjneff on July 01, 2013, 00:59
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!

Quote from: jjneff on July 01, 2013, 00:59
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.