MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How does the NEW iStock stack up against Shutterstock?  (Read 26436 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #100 on: September 26, 2014, 16:40 »
+2
It's implied in what you said in reply to Pixelbytes' observation.
No it's not.   Lots of buyers are getting much cheaper files now, overall the prices have come down since the change.  Some buyers may feel shafted and may not come back even with lower prices but some buyers will probably look at the prices and that's all they will be concerned with.
How do you know that "overall prices have come down since the change"? That depends on a whole lot of data about what the sales volume at different price points was that neither you nor I are privy to.  There's no doubt at all that some buyers are feeling shafted, and with good reason.
So when you say buyers might just look at the price comparison between SS and iS and go for iS based on price alone, in response to Pixelbytes' observation about customers possibly being put off by iStock's record of unilaterally scrapping its deals with buyers and substituting other stuff, you are being obtuse. Istock has made itself unreliable to customers by devaluing/revaluing/messing about with their accounts. That's beyond question.
You obviously feel very strongly about this.  I'm not going to be bullied into agreeing with your position just because you call me names though.  I think I'll step away from this argument before things get too heated.

I'm not bullying you, and I only feel strongly about the truth, regardless of whether it favours iStock, SS or any other company.

It's not a matter for debate, even by iS cheerleaders.
The fact is, they revalued iS credits which people had bought with certain expectations. Of course, they have had a history of that, though not to such a large degree.
This is quite different from changing prices on a website or in a supermarket, as they already have the money.
Of course, they'll have covered their behinds in the T&C, but which other known/reliable/international company works that way and has changed so often.


« Reply #101 on: September 26, 2014, 17:28 »
+2
Back to the topic and the thread.  40 images at Shutterstock vs. iStock would be about the same give or take a few dollars. ETA:  Never mind they cost exactly the same:  $376 SS and $376 Istock

Except that the buyer Sue quoted (and many of the customers complaining on the web) only wanted medium size images. And the SS price for 60 mediums is $229.

Which brings us back to the single month sub at iStock being the better deal - that much content and more for a lower entry price.

As I said - it's a good offer that iStock are making and it is odd that they do not promote it better given that presumably they want customers to use them rather than going somewhere else.

« Reply #102 on: October 03, 2014, 17:17 »
+1
It's a "very expensive option" if you only  want 25 microstock images.  It's about $80 per image, not 22c an image.

Should be the minimum price considering our work. The fact is that microstock industry is engaging a commercial war where the only victims will be photographers and photography. Don't forget that iStock is paying 15% of commission to the newbies. One-five!! Less is not possible to find in any other business. If the MS agency are plenty of amateur, ready to have 10 bucks per month, will never be possible to change the situation.

« Reply #103 on: October 03, 2014, 19:55 »
+6
I feel offended. :D Why are you pointing fingers at amateurs? If I am not mistaken this business started based on the amateurs photos as a cheap mass alternative. And there is a big difference by a cheap amateur photo and a professional/semi-professional one - the quality. Yes, the market is saturated, but nowadays there are plenty of other free alternatives for free amateur photos for buyers/users. Don't hate the player, hate the game. 

« Reply #104 on: October 04, 2014, 02:01 »
+1
It's a "very expensive option" if you only  want 25 microstock images.  It's about $80 per image, not 22c an image.

Should be the minimum price considering our work. The fact is that microstock industry is engaging a commercial war where the only victims will be photographers and photography. Don't forget that iStock is paying 15% of commission to the newbies. One-five!! Less is not possible to find in any other business. If the MS agency are plenty of amateur, ready to have 10 bucks per month, will never be possible to change the situation.

If your work is worth a minimum of $80 per license, why are you selling it through micro-payment stock (to go back to the original name)?

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #105 on: October 04, 2014, 07:30 »
0
Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing.

irrilevant.
they're a potential buyer only as long as they can afford our products.






Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #106 on: October 04, 2014, 07:33 »
+2
How long will Getty customers to figure out this hack?

in my experience, the typical RM buyers are not begging for the cheapest deal, they're willing to pay a premium for the photo that better fits their needs.





 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
87 Replies
33314 Views
Last post July 24, 2006, 06:01
by GeoPappas
21 Replies
7265 Views
Last post May 04, 2006, 08:28
by leaf
14 Replies
6670 Views
Last post March 19, 2008, 14:47
by vonkara
9 Replies
11012 Views
Last post October 12, 2011, 00:38
by RacePhoto
14 Replies
4482 Views
Last post April 12, 2013, 13:52
by Poncke

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle