Quote from: Ron on July 02, 2013, 11:13

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?

]

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

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 02, 2013, 11:33

Quote from: tickstock on July 02, 2013, 11:30

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 02, 2013, 11:25

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

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.

Quote from: KB on July 02, 2013, 11:34

Quote from: cthoman on July 02, 2013, 10:53

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?

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.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/ref=hp_468502_abtvlpg?nodeId=200726210
http://www.lowes.com/cd_Appliance+Advantage_290232167_

]

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
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.