Since the thread may not last long, I thought I'd copy the OP anyway:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354492&page=1

Today as I was searching for a picture that would work perfectly in my production, I noticed that all my choices were running anywhere from $70 to $155 for a picture in the resolutions that can work for me.

As other's have said, this is a far cry from many years ago when the same picture was around $10. Case in point, I have many pictures in my archive that I purchased for less than $10 and now sell for $70 and higher.

Now, I get photographers should get paid. As a designer myself, I love to get paid. But my clients are now vetoing using iStock for microstock purchases anymore. They don't want the extra budget in their productions.

it is a real shame. I personally believe that prices should be a bit lower to encourage a higher volume of sales, AND the cut iStockPhoto takes shouldn't be anything much more than 10%. The corporate goals of Getty to their sharholders is forcing me out as a customer, but again not as me, but dealing with client budgets.

My only comment is that perhaps the designer should use the price slider to try to find less expensive images. Sounds like they are looking at only S+ and Vetta files at the prices cited.

I dont think anyone would NOT expect to see prices for things to go up...just about everything you can buy goes up in price. But greedy, massive increases are never going to fly. I dont see how getty can think going from microstock prices all the way up to the way prices were 10 years ago in such a short time would NOT mean losing buyers. Duh.

The buyer is the problem here, wanting to get images for peanuts, or a tenner.

We all say our images are sold too cheap, and when the pricing goes up we complain buyers dont want them. Catch 22. We need to make up our minds.

but if that designer were to hire a photographer to get the shot(s) they need (if that's even possible) they'd pay a lot, lot more.

How can you make that argument and be a stock photographer at the same time? In any case, it's head in the sand stuff: Stock exists, so a lot of people will use that instead of hiring a photographer; microstock exists, so a lot of people will use that rather than paying more at a traditionally-priced site.

And the problem is not the buyer, that's a disgraceful argument. Microstock was set up to provide images for the masses who couldn't afford traditional stock prices. The problem is, and always has been, that buyers don't have barrels filled with money to lavish on photographers, they have budgets that they have to work within and if an image is outside that budget they have to find it cheaper somewhere else or do without.

Istock apparently wants to go back to the days when only elite corporations could afford pretty pictures for their adverts and brochures, before some evil market-wrecking company started giving images away for almost nothing. What was its name, oh, yes, that's right, iStock.

Buyers at istock are buying there based on its original intent...microstock. They expect to NOT pay $100 or more for an image. Thats why micro was started...companies dont have those kinds of budgets anymore where they can hire a photographer or pay $100-200 for a single image.


Its a great concept for getty to think they can just, overnight, start charging those kinds of fees and get them. The reality is the economy is way different than it used to be. People make salaries today that are less than what they made 20 years ago. Why does getty imagine stock photography would be any different? Reality check.


What other industry do you know of where prices can go from $10 to $100+ dollars in a short amount of time and still retain customers. Someone is smoking the reefer.

Customers are not all clones. They are all different, with different needs and different budgets. Of course, for some Vetta could be expensive (and, btw,  now, the Agency files that now are Vetta are way cheaper than they were a week ago); other with more budget may thing that 100-150 dollars is just a little drop in the whole campaign's budget (some of my photos, and, sure, some of yours, have been used in campaings where just the price of placement of the ad in magazines excedeed 100.000 dollars)

If you can't find a suitable image for under $50, you're not looking in the right places.   

Quote from: gillian on June 21, 2013, 04:38

but if that designer were to hire a photographer to get the shot(s) they need (if that's even possible) they'd pay a lot, lot more.

How can you make that argument and be a stock photographer at the same time? In any case, it's head in the sand stuff: Stock exists, so a lot of people will use that instead of hiring a photographer; microstock exists, so a lot of people will use that rather than paying more at a traditionally-priced site.

And the problem is not the buyer, that's a disgraceful argument. Microstock was set up to provide images for the masses who couldn't afford traditional stock prices. The problem is, and always has been, that buyers don't have barrels filled with money to lavish on photographers, they have budgets that they have to work within and if an image is outside that budget they have to find it cheaper somewhere else or do without.

Istock apparently wants to go back to the days when only elite corporations could afford pretty pictures for their adverts and brochures, before some evil market-wrecking company started giving images away for almost nothing. What was its name, oh, yes, that's right, iStock.

If the buyer doestn want to pay a fair price, then the buyer is the problem. Sorry, but thats not a disgraceful argument. Buyers can make or break a business.

Quote from: Ron on June 21, 2013, 04:40

The buyer is the problem here, wanting to get images for peanuts, or a tenner.

We all say our images are sold too cheap, and when the pricing goes up we complain buyers dont want them. Catch 22. We need to make up our minds.

No, it doesnt matter what we want. The buyers are the ones complaining and leaving, as they rightly should. Heres an idea...why dont the micro sites work together, like many other industries, and all make a move to slowly raise prices on all their sites? That way, everyone keeps their piece of the pie, and everyone wins, assuming those price hikes are shared with contributors. The answer, of course, is that it will never happen...because of greed.


And every time someone like getty cheats the contributor, they get even more contributors! Again, blame is being placed on contributors when the problem is the greedy corporations. Raising the prices that much doesnt seem like the right answer to me.

Did I just walk into the twilight zone? I have seen so many comments complaining about buyers expecting top quality images for peanuts, and now all of a sudden they are rightly doing so by demanding a lower price or walk away?

The world upside down. Is it true what they say, photographers have no business acumen?

Quote from: cclapper on June 21, 2013, 04:58

Quote from: Ron on June 21, 2013, 04:40

The buyer is the problem here, wanting to get images for peanuts, or a tenner.

We all say our images are sold too cheap, and when the pricing goes up we complain buyers dont want them. Catch 22. We need to make up our minds.

No, it doesnt matter what we want. The buyers are the ones complaining and leaving, as they rightly should. Heres an idea...why dont the micro sites work together, like many other industries, and all make a move to slowly raise prices on all their sites? That way, everyone keeps their piece of the pie, and everyone wins, assuming those price hikes are shared with contributors. The answer, of course, is that it will never happen...because of greed.


And every time someone like getty cheats the contributor, they get even more contributors! Again, blame is being placed on contributors when the problem is the greedy corporations. Raising the prices that much doesnt seem like the right answer to me.

Did I just walk into the twilight zone? I have seen so many comments complaining about buyers expecting top quality images for peanuts, and now all of a sudden they are rightly doing so by demanding a lower price or walk away?

The world upside down. Is it true what they say, photographers have no business acumen?

The world is certainly upside-down, however it is not the photographers who are being greedy but the agencies who take up to 85% of the purchase price. That is where the problem is.

If we had the standard agency agreement for digital products (like app's, music downloads and e-books), with 70% going to the content creator and 30% to the selling agency, then photographers might actually have an incentive to create.

Oh, and under the agency agreement, the content creator also gets to set the price that their product is sold at too __ not the agency.

Imagine how the microstock world could be under those terms.

Quote from: Ron on June 21, 2013, 06:24

Quote from: cclapper on June 21, 2013, 04:58

Quote from: Ron on June 21, 2013, 04:40

The buyer is the problem here, wanting to get images for peanuts, or a tenner.

We all say our images are sold too cheap, and when the pricing goes up we complain buyers dont want them. Catch 22. We need to make up our minds.

No, it doesnt matter what we want. The buyers are the ones complaining and leaving, as they rightly should. Heres an idea...why dont the micro sites work together, like many other industries, and all make a move to slowly raise prices on all their sites? That way, everyone keeps their piece of the pie, and everyone wins, assuming those price hikes are shared with contributors. The answer, of course, is that it will never happen...because of greed.


And every time someone like getty cheats the contributor, they get even more contributors! Again, blame is being placed on contributors when the problem is the greedy corporations. Raising the prices that much doesnt seem like the right answer to me.

Did I just walk into the twilight zone? I have seen so many comments complaining about buyers expecting top quality images for peanuts, and now all of a sudden they are rightly doing so by demanding a lower price or walk away?

The world upside down. Is it true what they say, photographers have no business acumen?

The world is certainly upside-down, however it is not the photographers who are being greedy but the agencies who take up to 85% of the purchase price. That is where the problem is.

If we had the standard agency agreement for digital products (like app's, music downloads and e-books), with 70% going to the content creator and 30% to the selling agency, then photographers might actually have an incentive to create.

Oh, and under the agency agreement, the content creator also gets to set the price that their product is sold at too __ not the agency.

Imagine how the microstock world could be under those terms.

We had our chance.  Several sites paid 70% commission but most people wouldn't use them because they didn't have enough buyers.  They couldn't get buyers because not enough of us uploaded our portfolios and had a bit of patience.  I think all the problems we have now are of our own making.  Why are people still uploading all their images to istock?  They have the lowest commission percentage and all the other sites can see that's fine with us.

Without another penny going to the photographer!  This is another big problem with the RF license - people can download their own digital libraries with a single subscription and then use those images in perpetuity without paying another cent.  Great for the designer, very bad for the content producer.  RF images really need an expiration date so they self destruct after an agreed period of time.  It isn't right that someone can continue to make money selling designs with our images for years and years without paying any other royalties.  The RF model really doesn't work for photographers in the long term.

Sub  images do have an expiry date ... unlike RF licenses from Istock for example. Here's an excerpt from SS's ToS under the YOU MAY NOT restrictions;

18.Stockpile, download, or otherwise store Images not used within six (6) months of the expiration of the subscription under which you downloaded the Image. If you fail to use an Image within such six (6) month period, you will lose all rights to use that Image.  

http://www.shutterstock.com/licensing.mhtml

TS subs are the same.
Has anyone every heard of SS or TS going after a buyer for using an image after their sub had expired? How on earth could they police that on such tiny prices? And that's something the content provider would have virtually no chance of guessing.

Buyers can make or break a business.

No they can't. It's management decisions that do that. If the buyers go away and the business sinks its because a lousy management couldn't pitch its product at the proper level, or got its sums wrong and just generally misunderstood the market that it was meant to be supplying.