MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: How does the NEW iStock stack up against Shutterstock?  (Read 26438 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2014, 23:28 »
+1
Good thing SS have only photos of fruit on white.  Your safe from competition.
It's not all fruit on white but a search for those terms gets nearly 1,000,000 results.

I guess that is 800,000 that IS doesn't have and over 39,000,000 non isolated fruit images.


« Reply #26 on: September 17, 2014, 07:04 »
-2
Good thing SS have only photos of fruit on white.  Your safe from competition.
It's not all fruit on white but a search for those terms gets nearly 1,000,000 results.

I guess that is 800,000 that IS doesn't have and over 39,000,000 non isolated fruit images.
The point was that I don't shoot things like fruit isolated on white because nearly 1,000,000 images like that already exist on sites like Shutterstock for  a cheaper price.  There are lots of other subjects that don't make sense shooting either but some subjects aren't covered nearly so extensively and those are the ones where a buyer would have to chose to pay more for an exclusive file or not get what they are looking for.

« Reply #27 on: September 17, 2014, 07:24 »
+3
my best seller on ss is vegetable isolated on white - one year old

« Reply #28 on: September 17, 2014, 07:33 »
0
i don't know....but in these new IS days i got 0 downloads....and that is strange to me  :(

« Reply #29 on: September 17, 2014, 08:44 »
0
They messed up again, TS was a good seller for new files and was diluted with the IS subscription. They just lost more customers to SS in yet another unnecessary transition. I sold more credit sales than usual the days before the change and 0 since then. Lost all my hope for IS.

All micro agencies with the exception of SS are decaying, and as the industry reaches maturity it's normal and expected for increased market share concentration. In the long term it's gonna be just SS which would be great if it wasn't for the flooding competition. I still carry on with FT but I know it's just matter of time until they too go under.

« Reply #30 on: September 17, 2014, 09:09 »
0
They messed up again, TS was a good seller for new files and was diluted with the IS subscription.

But pp is still ongoing right?

« Reply #31 on: September 17, 2014, 09:39 »
0
They messed up again, TS was a good seller for new files and was diluted with the IS subscription.

But pp is still ongoing right?

Yes PP is still there... for now. My sales crashed last month anyway, so I stopped uploading.

« Reply #32 on: September 18, 2014, 15:30 »
-5
Here's the marketing comparison.
www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

iStock by Getty Images vs Shutterstock comparison:

► iStock has 155K contributors from 165 countries vs. Shutterstock 60K+ contributors from 100+ countries
► Eighty percent of search results in key global markets are returned in under 3 seconds during core business hours on iStock, vs. 30% for Shutterstock
► Video HD from $48USD compared to $79USD for Shutterstock
► Minimum entry is $15USD vs. $29USD (2 images) at Shutterstock
► No daily download limits on subscriptions compared to a 25/daily download limit for Shutterstock
► Signature priced at $24-36USD per image (depending on pack size purchased)

KB

« Reply #33 on: September 18, 2014, 16:58 »
+10
► Eighty percent of search results in key global markets are returned in under 3 seconds during core business hours on iStock, vs. 30% for Shutterstock
I really have to question the validity of that data; it's very hard to believe, based on what I've experienced.

Quote
► Video HD from $48USD compared to $79USD for Shutterstock
Well, that's wonderful; racing to the bottom in video? Good luck to IS with that, as I am certain that indie contributors will be pulling their ports en masse soon enough. I'm not going to stand for it, for one (like they'll miss me!).

Shelma1

« Reply #34 on: September 18, 2014, 16:58 »
+13
Here's the marketing comparison.
www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

iStock by Getty Images vs Shutterstock comparison:


Marketingspeak! My specialty.

► iStock has 155K contributors from 165 countries vs. Shutterstock 60K+ contributors from 100+ countries
iStock's been around longer; Shutterstock is growing more quickly.

► Eighty percent of search results in key global markets are returned in under 3 seconds during core business hours on iStock, vs. 30% for Shutterstock
Huh? Really stretching, here.

► Video HD from $48USD compared to $79USD for Shutterstock
18 credits on iStock is $175USD compared to $79USD for Shutterstock

► Minimum entry is $15USD vs. $29USD (2 images) at Shutterstock
They had to go with "minimum entry" here because 2 images cost $29 on Shutter and $30 on iStock

► No daily download limits on subscriptions compared to a 25/daily download limit for Shutterstock
750 downloads per month limit on iStock equals 25 per day

► Signature priced at $24-36USD per image (depending on pack size purchased)
See point #4 above. No different collection on iStock...all images are $14.50USD

Edited to spin point #1 a bit better.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2014, 18:17 by Shelma1 »

« Reply #35 on: September 18, 2014, 17:28 »
0
Here's the marketing comparison.
www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

iStock by Getty Images vs Shutterstock comparison:


Marketingspeak! My specialty.

► iStock has 155K contributors from 165 countries vs. Shutterstock 60K+ contributors from 100+ countries
iStock's been around longer; Shutterstock is growing more quickly.

► Eighty percent of search results in key global markets are returned in under 3 seconds during core business hours on iStock, vs. 30% for Shutterstock
Huh? Really stretching, here.

► Video HD from $48USD compared to $79USD for Shutterstock
18 credits on iStock is $175USD compared to $79USD for Shutterstock

► Minimum entry is $15USD vs. $29USD (2 images) at Shutterstock
They had to go with "minimum entry" here because 2 images cost $29 on Shutter and $30 on iStock

► No daily download limits on subscriptions compared to a 25/daily download limit for Shutterstock
750 downloads per month limit on iStock equals 25 per day

► Signature priced at $24-36USD per image (depending on pack size purchased)
See point #4 above. No different collection on iStock...all images are $14.50USD

Edited to spin point #1 a bit better.

1  Your first point, I don't know if those numbers show Shutterstock is growing contributors faster.  They might be growing contributors faster but nothing in the stat would suggest it.   Shutterstock was founded in 2003 and istock in 2000 so iStock has been around 14 years and SS 11 so lets say 30% longer, you would expect the numbers to be about that difference if the growth was the same, not 150% higher right?  A better criticism would probably be that the number of contributors isn't terribly relevant, total images or something else is a better measure.
2  Second point, not sure about that one.  Most people say SS has a faster search.  There is contact info there so you could ask where they got that one.
3  Third, nonexclusive video is 6 credits not 18, 18 is for exclusive.  Compare like to like.  $48-65 is the correct price you should be looking at, either way it is cheaper than SS for the same clips.
4  Fourth minimum entry of 1 vs 2.  It's true that average price for 1 iStock photo vs. 2 Shutterstock photos is more expensive but you could also say 3 photos for iStock is cheaper on average than 2 photos on SS.  3 on iStock would average $12 at most compared to $14.50 on Shutterstock. 
5 Fifth.  Buyers don't buy as much on the weekends, I'm sure you know that because they are away from work.  Buyers at SS would probably rather roll those unused downloads over into the work week if they could.
6 Last, having exclusive content is a selling point.  I'm sure it sounds good to some buyers or they wouldn't be paying contributors more for it would they?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2014, 17:37 by tickstock »

Shelma1

« Reply #36 on: September 18, 2014, 18:13 »
0
utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter[/url]

1  Your first point, I don't know if those numbers show Shutterstock is growing contributors faster.  They might be growing contributors faster but nothing in the stat would suggest it.   Shutterstock was founded in 2003 and istock in 2000 so iStock has been around 14 years and SS 11 so lets say 30% longer, you would expect the numbers to be about that difference if the growth was the same, not 150% higher right?  A better criticism would probably be that the number of contributors isn't terribly relevant, total images or something else is a better measure.

Does Shutterstock count Getty in its contributors? I honestly don't know. But either company could spin this their way.

2  Second point, not sure about that one.  Most people say SS has a faster search.  There is contact info there so you could ask where they got that one.

"Most people"? Who? Shutterstock has a faster site, at least for contributors. Who cares if 30% of images show up in under 3 seconds? How many people make it past page 1 or 2 of the results? And jeebus, just say iStock's search is faster, if it's true. That language makes my head spin.

3  Third, nonexclusive video is 6 credits not 18, 18 is for exclusive.  Compare like to like.  $48-65 is the correct price you should be looking at, either way it is cheaper than SS for the same clips.

Well, you can't really compare like to like, because Shutterstock doesn't have exclusive images, so I guess you could average the two and say iS video clips cost $1XX.00 on average.

4  Fourth minimum entry of 1 vs 2.  It's true that average price for 1 iStock photo vs. 2 Shutterstock photos is more expensive but you could also say 3 photos for iStock is cheaper on average than 2 photos on SS.  3 on iStock would average $12 at most compared to $14.50 on Shutterstock. 

Yeah, you could say that. But iStock chose what to say, and they chose to compare a slightly more expensive buy to a slighter cheaper one and use the weasel words "minimum entry."

5 Fifth.  Buyers don't buy as much on the weekends, I'm sure you know that because they are away from work.  Buyers at SS would probably rather roll those unused downloads over into the work week if they could.

Sub sites make money on subs because hardly anyone uses all their downloads. Moot point.

6 Last, having exclusive content is a selling point.  I'm sure it sounds good to some buyers or they wouldn't be paying contributors more for it would they?

This I don't know. The images are only exclusive to iStock, not to the buyers. Which is probably why iStock calls them something other than "exclusive," like "Vetta" or "Signature," which connote quality rather than exclusivity.

« Reply #37 on: September 18, 2014, 18:24 »
+5
Here's the marketing comparison.
www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

iStock by Getty Images vs Shutterstock comparison:

► iStock has 155K contributors from 165 countries vs. Shutterstock 60K+ contributors from 100+ countries
► Eighty percent of search results in key global markets are returned in under 3 seconds during core business hours on iStock, vs. 30% for Shutterstock
► Video HD from $48USD compared to $79USD for Shutterstock
► Minimum entry is $15USD vs. $29USD (2 images) at Shutterstock
► No daily download limits on subscriptions compared to a 25/daily download limit for Shutterstock
► Signature priced at $24-36USD per image (depending on pack size purchased)


Oh yeah! That must be why Istock is doing so much better than SS. We can all see that for ourselves in our sales and revenue. Not.

Do you actually believe everything you read on the internet (provided it supports your own bizarre choices)?

I don't even know what "Eighty percent of search results in key global markets are returned in under 3 seconds during core business hours on iStock, vs. 30% for Shutterstock" even means? Do you? What exactly are "core business hours" in a global enterprise?

Is it sort of claiming that Istock's website works better than Shutterstock's?

admin edit: removed crude language
« Last Edit: September 26, 2014, 00:38 by leaf »

« Reply #38 on: September 18, 2014, 18:28 »
+1
Here's the marketing comparison.
www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

iStock by Getty Images vs Shutterstock comparison:

► iStock has 155K contributors from 165 countries vs. Shutterstock 60K+ contributors from 100+ countries
► Eighty percent of search results in key global markets are returned in under 3 seconds during core business hours on iStock, vs. 30% for Shutterstock
► Video HD from $48USD compared to $79USD for Shutterstock
► Minimum entry is $15USD vs. $29USD (2 images) at Shutterstock
► No daily download limits on subscriptions compared to a 25/daily download limit for Shutterstock
► Signature priced at $24-36USD per image (depending on pack size purchased)


Oh yeah! That must be why Istock is doing so much better than SS. We call all see that for ourselves in our sales and revenue. Not.

Do you actually believe everything you read on the internet (provided it supports your own bizarre choices)?

I don't even know what "Eighty percent of search results in key global markets are returned in under 3 seconds during core business hours on iStock, vs. 30% for Shutterstock" even means? Do you? What exactly are "core business hours" in a global enterprise?

Is it sort of claiming that Istock's website works better than Shutterstock's? What an utter f*&king joke!

I'm not saying iStock is doing better or worse than SS or that I believe all the claims, I put this out there because this is the closest thing to an official response on the topic that anyone is going to get from iStock.  This thread is about how the new iStock compares so it seemed relevant to the discussion.  In the link there is a way to contact the Getty person who made these claims, you should direct your anger at them not me.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2014, 18:32 by tickstock »

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #39 on: September 18, 2014, 18:34 »
+1
Oh yeah! That must be why Istock is doing so much better than SS. We call all see that for ourselves in our sales and revenue. Not.

Good luck in trusting SS to sustain your micro stock career for years to come.
None of the agencies have the balance right at the moment and until they do you'll be flipping burgers like the rest of us in a few years.

« Reply #40 on: September 18, 2014, 18:40 »
+11
Seattle must not be a key global market - iStock's searches are generally painfully slow and Shutterstock's generally very speedy. Shutterstock's results look a ton better visually - 2014 vs. 2004

Who cares where the contributors come from or how many there are - it's what's in the collection that counts. it's certainly true that Shutterstock doesn't have all those high priced underexposed fruit slices with black bars on the side (that Getty dumped into the Vetta collection and can now be had for 3 credits apiece).

iStock's subscriptions are much more expensive then Shutterstock's if you look realistically at what you're getting - only 250 images a month if you buy a one month subscription to try it out and $499 (if you want access to the whole iStock collection, including the terrible lime slices)  versus $249  for 750 at Shutterstock.

iStock used to appeal to buyers who wouldn't have shopped at Shutterstock and now they're so fixated on perceived losses to Shutterstock being their problem that they're losing all perspective.

Their big problems are making the site unusable for low-medium volume buyers of small-medium images and having a high price collection with no obvious distinction from the low price one.

But you don't have to convince contributors of anything, so making some bulleted list of irrelevant differences won't get one more buyer to the site. I feel bad for friends who are still exclusive and watching their income plummet with this new setup, but I honestly think iStock just hasn't a clue about what's wrong with their site and thus keeps making mistakes in lurching to one "fix" after another, while the private equity vultures hover, looking for ways to cash out.

« Reply #41 on: September 18, 2014, 19:01 »
-4
Seattle must not be a key global market - iStock's searches are generally painfully slow and Shutterstock's generally very speedy. Shutterstock's results look a ton better visually - 2014 vs. 2004

Who cares where the contributors come from or how many there are - it's what's in the collection that counts. it's certainly true that Shutterstock doesn't have all those high priced underexposed fruit slices with black bars on the side (that Getty dumped into the Vetta collection and can now be had for 3 credits apiece).

iStock's subscriptions are much more expensive then Shutterstock's if you look realistically at what you're getting - only 250 images a month if you buy a one month subscription to try it out and $499 (if you want access to the whole iStock collection, including the terrible lime slices)  versus $249  for 750 at Shutterstock.

iStock used to appeal to buyers who wouldn't have shopped at Shutterstock and now they're so fixated on perceived losses to Shutterstock being their problem that they're losing all perspective.

Their big problems are making the site unusable for low-medium volume buyers of small-medium images and having a high price collection with no obvious distinction from the low price one.

But you don't have to convince contributors of anything, so making some bulleted list of irrelevant differences won't get one more buyer to the site. I feel bad for friends who are still exclusive and watching their income plummet with this new setup, but I honestly think iStock just hasn't a clue about what's wrong with their site and thus keeps making mistakes in lurching to one "fix" after another, while the private equity vultures hover, looking for ways to cash out.

Maybe you haven't seen the subs plans at iStock but they have one for $1,995 for the year for 750 images/month.  http://www.istockphoto.com/plans-and-pricing  You can compare it to Shutterstock's year plan that is 25/day for $2,388.  http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml?pos=topright
« Last Edit: September 18, 2014, 19:05 by tickstock »

« Reply #42 on: September 18, 2014, 22:02 »
+7
I realize there are some plans that are cheaper but you're missing the point. If you want to give it a try, it's very expensive. You have to get locked in for a year to get anything affordable

If you were confident buyers would like it, why not offer a decent deal on a month with an option to convert to a year if you were happy (getting credit for your initial payment)?

iStock has to win buyers back, not try to force them by pricing tricks

« Reply #43 on: September 18, 2014, 22:37 »
+3

iStock has to win buyers back, not try to force them by pricing tricks

So true, but year after year they just try more pricing tricks and monkey around with credit values.

Shelma1

« Reply #44 on: September 19, 2014, 06:30 »
+12
One more difference between iStock and Shutterstock: when Shutterstock offers a discount, our earnings stay the same. And our earnings percentage there is higher to begin with. (For indies at least.)

But basically, I see the bullet comparison list as another bumbling mistake. Shutterstock doesn't mention the competition. iStock not only mentions them but puts in the consumer's mind that Shutterstock must be Coke, and iStock, Pepsi. I can just imagine the angry iStock small image buyers who hadn't looked elsewhere saying, "wait, what's Shutterstock?" and then being driven right to their site.

« Reply #45 on: September 19, 2014, 08:45 »
+1
someone on IS forum said it correctly....we will have to wait October and November regular sales to say if this was a good or bad move...actually doesn't look good  :(

« Reply #46 on: September 19, 2014, 09:50 »
+4
A bit like David and Goliath - except in this case Goliath (SS) is wearing full head and body armor and David (IS) throws stones like a girl*


* apologies ladies

KB

« Reply #47 on: September 19, 2014, 10:04 »
+5
someone on IS forum said it correctly....we will have to wait October and November regular sales to say if this was a good or bad move...actually doesn't look good  :(
As an IS exclusive, I don't have to wait. If sales pick up in October and November, they would have picked up anyway.

What I see now is what I will get: An immediate hit to my income of around 25%, on an RPD basis.  >:(

« Reply #48 on: September 19, 2014, 10:18 »
+10
someone on IS forum said it correctly....we will have to wait October and November regular sales to say if this was a good or bad move...actually doesn't look good  :(
As an IS exclusive, I don't have to wait. If sales pick up in October and November, they would have picked up anyway.

What I see now is what I will get: An immediate hit to my income of around 25%, on an RPD basis.  >:(

I don't think the following scenario is likely, but here's an optimistic hypothetical: iStock's new prices and collection setup is so appealing to buyers that after they dump their credits/subscriptions elsewhere, they flock to iStock in volumes not seen for years. Your RPD is down, but the sales volume is so high that your monthly income doubles.

I have always argued that it isn't RPD that matters, it's the monthly total from your portfolio. Way back when, iStock regularly beat earnings from other sites with theoretically higher royalties - 50% vs. 20% (who'd have thought one could wax nostalgic over a 20% royalty!), it did so because it sold more files than most of those sites.

As iStock played silly buggers with the formula that had made it successful, they hiked prices and as sales volumes dropped, contributors consoled themselves with the nice feel of higher returns from a single sale. The problem hits if the download number approaches zero and cutting prices back only helps if buyers who left are willing to give you a second chance.

While they have all that dumped Getty rubbish in with the good stuff in the Signature collection, and tons of excellent indie work that looks like Signature stuff in the Essentials collection, I think the impression it leaves is that iStock isn't serious about delivering buyers value for money. Which is why I don't expect the increased volume hypothetical to become reality.

KB

« Reply #49 on: September 19, 2014, 10:37 »
+4
Exactly right, Jo Ann.

And I agree that RPD isn't what really matters, it's the bottom line. The pessimistic (but to me, probable) scenario is that buyers are dumping credits -- iStock credits -- and sales will actually continue the slow decline that we've been suffering over the last two years.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
87 Replies
33314 Views
Last post July 24, 2006, 06:01
by GeoPappas
21 Replies
7266 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