MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Holmes on September 13, 2014, 13:35
-
We now have the new and improved "yuri" iStock. Simple. Cleaner. It was retooled to deal with Shutterstock's product offering and to win back buyers.
So, how do you think it matches up from a buyers perspective in the areas of price, selection, ease-of-use, price-package offerings, etc?
Did iStock get it right? Or no.
iStock Subscriptions on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/105590778)
-
trying to get the video to work
iStock Subscriptions on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/105590778)
-
Find one of Yuri's images in the E+ collection on gettyimage.com where it will cost you between $45 and $429 depending on the file size you need. Then copy and paste a string of the keywords (7 or 8 will do) and go to iStock and do a search for that string of keywords. I think you'll usually find the image where you can buy it for $36 or less depending on the size of the package of credits you buy.
How long will Getty customers to figure out this hack?
How do you think this is going to work for Yuri (or anyone else with images in the Signature collection)?
-
We now have the new and improved "yuri" iStock. Simple. Cleaner. It was retooled to deal with Shutterstock's product offering and to win back buyers.
So, how do you think it matches up from a buyers perspective in the areas of price, selection, ease-of-use, price-package offerings, etc?
Did iStock get it right? Or no.
iStock Subscriptions on Vimeo ([url]http://vimeo.com/105590778[/url])
"... over 500,000 new images added every month ..."
No wonder they dropped almost all technical and aesthetic inspection standards.
I'm not qualified to answer how the new IS stacks up to SS. I'm qualified only to see how buyers react. I hope sales start increasing, and the changes don't meet my expectations of an even bigger hit to my earnings than has happened since subs began. We shall see.
-
this was just posted on the IS forum. Kinda what I am suspecting.
"We purchase images on iStock for illustrating online articles, so we don't need the high resolution images. We typically bought small versions at 2 to 6 old credits, so about $4 to $12 each. Under the new pricing structure they will now be $15 to $45 each. Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing. Please bring back the smaller sizes at a reduced rate. Otherwise we have no choice but to pursue other more economical options for web-resolution images."
-
this was just posted on the IS forum. Kinda what I am suspecting.
"We purchase images on iStock for illustrating online articles, so we don't need the high resolution images. We typically bought small versions at 2 to 6 old credits, so about $4 to $12 each. Under the new pricing structure they will now be $15 to $45 each. Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing. Please bring back the smaller sizes at a reduced rate. Otherwise we have no choice but to pursue other more economical options for web-resolution images."
The pricing at Shutterstock is the same, $9-15 for single images, any size. No option for smaller, cheaper files.
-
.
-
this was just posted on the IS forum. Kinda what I am suspecting.
"We purchase images on iStock for illustrating online articles, so we don't need the high resolution images. We typically bought small versions at 2 to 6 old credits, so about $4 to $12 each. Under the new pricing structure they will now be $15 to $45 each. Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing. Please bring back the smaller sizes at a reduced rate. Otherwise we have no choice but to pursue other more economical options for web-resolution images."
The pricing at Shutterstock is the same, $9-15 for single images, any size. No option for smaller, cheaper files.
Still, $9 - $15 is a lot less than $15 - 45, if these are the US$ figures.
Exclusive files don't have to compete as much on price as nonexclusive files you can't go to SS and get my photos.
-
this was just posted on the IS forum. Kinda what I am suspecting.
"We purchase images on iStock for illustrating online articles, so we don't need the high resolution images. We typically bought small versions at 2 to 6 old credits, so about $4 to $12 each. Under the new pricing structure they will now be $15 to $45 each. Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing. Please bring back the smaller sizes at a reduced rate. Otherwise we have no choice but to pursue other more economical options for web-resolution images."
The pricing at Shutterstock is the same, $9-15 for single images, any size. No option for smaller, cheaper files.
Still, $9 - $15 is a lot less than $15 - 45, if these are the US$ figures.
Exclusive files don't have to compete as much on price as nonexclusive files you can't go to SS and get my photos.
If that matters so much to buyers, you'd think there would be a way that buyers could filter out indie files and only look at exclusives whereas now they can only choose not to see Signature files. AFAICs, there is no way to identify exclusive files - which was stopped when they realised that the 'faux-exclusives' put a spanner into that possibility.
-
You can search only signature files if you want.
-
I was always wondering what kind of business cannot afford to pay equivalent of cup of coffee (or even 3 cups) for an image?
-
You can search only signature files if you want.
How?
-
You can search only signature files if you want.
How?
There is an 'only from istock' checkbox in the search.
-
You can search only signature files if you want.
How?
There is an 'only from istock' checkbox in the search.
Tx. That wasn't there yesterday as confirmed by Kelvin in the big moving forward thread, only the subs checkboxes. Glad they responded to that issue.
-
The pricing at Shutterstock is the same, $9-15 for single images, any size. No option for smaller, cheaper files.
Wrong.
At least here in Germany, Shutterstock shows me two different image packs:
All sizes and vectors:
5 for €39 (€7.80 per image) or 25 for €179 (€7.16 per image)
and:
Small and medium JPEGs:
12 for €39 (€3.25 per image) or 60 for €179 (€2,98 per image)
-
The pricing at Shutterstock is the same, $9-15 for single images, any size. No option for smaller, cheaper files.
Wrong.
At least here in Germany, Shutterstock shows me two different image packs:
All sizes and vectors:
5 for €39 (€7.80 per image) or 25 for €179 (€7.16 per image)
and:
Small and medium JPEGs:
12 for €39 (€3.25 per image) or 60 for €179 (€2,98 per image)
They are from the US, I don't see any option here to get smaller images. I guess it's possible that he moves to Europe to get smaller sized images from SS but I don't think that's very practical. ;)
-
I see the faux-exclusives show in the search as being 'only from iStock'. I can find lots but I'll just post one:
http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/protecting-her-skin-against-the-harsh-sun-44002796?st=a82fee3 (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/protecting-her-skin-against-the-harsh-sun-44002796?st=a82fee3)
also available at
http://peopleimages.com/image/ID-865993-woman-sitting-applying-pool-beautiful (http://peopleimages.com/image/ID-865993-woman-sitting-applying-pool-beautiful)
Apart from the legality and morality of claiming that's 'only from iStock', there's something else interesting.
If Pickerell's article in July was accurate, these latest changes on iS have been devised and project managed by Yu-know-who, presumably including 'one price for any size'.
On his own site, he has many sizes on offer at different prices, and a price match promise on his site's front page. So when iS have 25% off offers his customer service staff could get a lot of calls/emails. And he offers his images in small sizes which buyers can't get from iS. Neat trick!
BTW, love his homepage claim #3:
"3. Only Site In the World With Just Exclusives!
... Our images are of the highest quality and exclusive to us and GettyImages only, so you wont find them anywhere else!"
I'm sure there are more sites with only exclusive images - Stocksy for one; even if 'only on iStock' images aren't necessarily so. Aren't some of the macros also image-exclusive / series-exclusive only?
-
this was just posted on the IS forum. Kinda what I am suspecting.
"We purchase images on iStock for illustrating online articles, so we don't need the high resolution images. We typically bought small versions at 2 to 6 old credits, so about $4 to $12 each. Under the new pricing structure they will now be $15 to $45 each. Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing. Please bring back the smaller sizes at a reduced rate. Otherwise we have no choice but to pursue other more economical options for web-resolution images."
The pricing at Shutterstock is the same, $9-15 for single images, any size. No option for smaller, cheaper files.
Still, $9 - $15 is a lot less than $15 - 45, if these are the US$ figures.
Exclusive files don't have to compete as much on price as nonexclusive files you can't go to SS and get my photos.
Can one go to SS and get something as close as makes no real difference?
-
They are from the US, I don't see any option here to get smaller images. I guess it's possible that he moves to Europe to get smaller sized images from SS but I don't think that's very practical. ;)
Interesting. That means Shutterstock sells different packages per continent / country?
I did not know that.
So for US buyers Shutterstock is no cheaper option to replace small sized single image sales after the price increase (for small sizes) of Istock.
But there are others, maybe we will see more small sized sales on Dreamstime or Fotolia...
-
this was just posted on the IS forum. Kinda what I am suspecting.
"We purchase images on iStock for illustrating online articles, so we don't need the high resolution images. We typically bought small versions at 2 to 6 old credits, so about $4 to $12 each. Under the new pricing structure they will now be $15 to $45 each. Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing. Please bring back the smaller sizes at a reduced rate. Otherwise we have no choice but to pursue other more economical options for web-resolution images."
The pricing at Shutterstock is the same, $9-15 for single images, any size. No option for smaller, cheaper files.
Still, $9 - $15 is a lot less than $15 - 45, if these are the US$ figures.
Exclusive files don't have to compete as much on price as nonexclusive files you can't go to SS and get my photos.
Can one go to SS and get something as close as makes no real difference?
For some images yes, for others no. Depends. I try not to shoot fruit isolated on white for that reason.
-
Question -- How does the NEW iStock stack up against Shutterstock? Answer - take two dozen eggs and place them one on top of the other.
New video sale on iStock -- 16/09/2014 8:16 AM MDT HD 1080 (mov) Regular $7.50 USD
Old video sales on iStock -- HD 720 (mov) Regular $17.85 USD
06/03/2014 6:00 AM MST HD 1080 (mov) Regular $22.15 USD
06/03/2014 5:12 AM MST HD 1080 (mov) Regular $21.85 USD
So much for that.
-
this was just posted on the IS forum. Kinda what I am suspecting.
"We purchase images on iStock for illustrating online articles, so we don't need the high resolution images. We typically bought small versions at 2 to 6 old credits, so about $4 to $12 each. Under the new pricing structure they will now be $15 to $45 each. Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing. Please bring back the smaller sizes at a reduced rate. Otherwise we have no choice but to pursue other more economical options for web-resolution images."
The pricing at Shutterstock is the same, $9-15 for single images, any size. No option for smaller, cheaper files.
Still, $9 - $15 is a lot less than $15 - 45, if these are the US$ figures.
Exclusive files don't have to compete as much on price as nonexclusive files you can't go to SS and get my photos.
Can one go to SS and get something as close as makes no real difference?
For some images yes, for others no. Depends. I try not to shoot fruit isolated on white for that reason.
Good thing SS have only photos of fruit on white. Your safe from competition.
-
From a buyer posting on iS FB page: "I just went on iStock to find an image for my project and was shocked to find my buying power had been cut by more than half. The smallest images have always fit my purpose and where I thought I had enough credits left to get me through the fiscal year, now I am going to run terribly short. How can iStock change the terms of my contract in the middle of the year and literally rob me of money?"
Interesting.
I assumed that like the ASA, they'd no doubt have some incomprehensible and/or ambiguous legalese to say they can do whatever they like re credits. But actually, from the Plans and Pricing page, I can't find it. I went as though to buy credits, and looked at the FAQs, but didn't see it there anywhere.
Anyone know where it is?
-
My sales at Istock totally evaporated. Looks like a slow weekend today and yesterday.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
my best seller on ss is vegetable isolated on white - one year old
-
i don't know....but in these new IS days i got 0 downloads....and that is strange to me :(
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 (http://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)
-
► 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.
► 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!).
-
Here's the marketing comparison.
[url=http://www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter]www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter[/url] ([url]http://www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter[/url])
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.
-
Here's the marketing comparison.
[url=http://www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter]www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter[/url] ([url]http://www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter[/url])
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?
-
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.
-
Here's the marketing comparison.
[url=http://www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter]www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter[/url] ([url]http://www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter[/url])
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
-
Here's the marketing comparison.
[url=http://www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter]www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter[/url] ([url]http://www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter[/url])
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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 (http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml?pos=topright)
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :(
-
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
-
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. >:(
-
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.
-
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.
-
Just saw the Shutterstock ad on Facebook. More than 1,100 likes and hundreds of shares. Meanwhile, iStock's FB page collects more and more disgruntled posts, mostly from buyers. Time to buy shares of SSTK?
-
Just saw the Shutterstock ad on Facebook. More than 1,100 likes and hundreds of shares. Meanwhile, iStock's FB page collects more and more disgruntled posts, mostly from buyers. Time to buy shares of SSTK?
I think iStock have greatly underestimated how negatively it reflects on your brand and your company when you treat artists so poorly year after year, especially in the relatively tight knit creative community where there is considerable overlap between buyers and suppliers.
-
Just saw the Shutterstock ad on Facebook. More than 1,100 likes and hundreds of shares. Meanwhile, iStock's FB page collects more and more disgruntled posts, mostly from buyers. Time to buy shares of SSTK?
I think iStock have greatly underestimated how negatively it reflects on your brand and your company when you treat artists so poorly year after year, especially in the relatively tight knit creative community where there is considerable overlap between buyers and suppliers.
+1 As I prepare to stop submitting microstock forever and move on to different things, I have one last comment on iStock:
While the decreasing revenues from microstock are mostly probably due to oversupply of images, it hasn't helped that so many image-creators have continued to do business with a company which they know does not act in good faith.
I stopped submitting to iStock years ago and removed most of my images, I literally thank God that I didn't need money badly enough to continue to partner with a company whose actions were so often divisive, dishonest, and destructive. I can't help but wonder what microstock would be like today if all microstockers had done the same. Would DP and others have tried their greedy dishonest schemes if they had seen iStock put out of business for what its actions? I suspect that even SS would now be paying more attention to the issues raised by contributors, instead of just dismissively posting mostly canned responses.
Looks like the microstock party is over, but how much longer might it have lasted if we suppliers had acted with more resolution in the face of unacceptable behavior by the likes of Getty/iStock?
-
I can't help but wonder what microstock would be like today if all microstockers had done the same. Would DP and others have tried their greedy dishonest schemes if they had seen iStock put out of business for what its actions? I suspect that even SS would now be paying more attention to the issues raised by contributors, instead of just dismissively posting mostly canned responses.
Your right, but I think it takes time for a site that is #1 to begin losing enough buyers and suppliers to make a difference.
It started with the RC system and has been growing over time. Looks like Istock's walk toward death continues and they are nearly there. They will still be cautionary tale for other sites.
Would be great if it happened fast but not realistic to expect. It is happening tho and even the Getty brass seem to figured it out by now.
-
sales are back again to me....let's see how october will be
-
sales are back again to me....let's see how october will be
So far, we haven't really seen the effects. People have had five credits swapped for one and have those still to spend. People who were going to buy two or three images will now only be able to buy one, but will they buy a new credit pack when their current one expires? If they don't , the impact will be seen weeks or months from now.
It astonishes me that every single change iStock makes seems - if one goes by what the forums say - to cut the earnings of suppliers, and since iStock's earnings are proportional to the suppliers' earnings, that means it cuts iStock's earnings, too. Yet Getty predicts improving profits in its submissions to its backers. It would be interesting to see what the going rate is for its debt, and how it's changed over time.
-
People have had five credits swapped for one and have those still to spend. People who were going to buy two or three images will now only be able to buy one, but will they buy a new credit pack when their current one expires? If they don't , the impact will be seen weeks or months from now.
i didn't thought about that! you're right...
-
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
This is still the key problem. They promised a faster site. It is unbelievably slow. I don't see any change at all in the speed of the search. Why stick with them if you have many images to search for a business presentation. Shutterstock just saves you so much time.
-
Just saw the Shutterstock ad on Facebook. More than 1,100 likes and hundreds of shares. Meanwhile, iStock's FB page collects more and more disgruntled posts, mostly from buyers. Time to buy shares of SSTK?
No, the time to buy was right after they went public - they are up about 350% from then and were up almost 500% at their peak. I thought about buying some when they went public and didn't - missed opportunity. I still think they should give contributors stock options.
Back to the OP - the new iS so far isn't doing much, won't hold my breath waiting for improvement.
-
Posting here in case it disappears from the iS forum: (added: removed already, which isn't entirely unreasonable as it names the competitor)
"I am a customer and a contributor (granted I don't have many files but I see things from both sides).
I am a web designer and currently working on a new project. I am going to have to purchase around 30-40 images. I don't need massive file sizes, it's all for web and mediums will be enough to produce standard and @2x retina images.
The cheapest I can do this on iStock is £224.75 and that assumes all but 3 images are 'essentials' and not 'signature'. If I go to Shutterstock, it is £139... and I will still have about 30 images left in my allowance."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362684&messageid=7050689 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362684&messageid=7050689)
-
Posting here in case it disappears from the iS forum:
"I am a customer and a contributor (granted I don't have many files but I see things from both sides).
I am a web designer and currently working on a new project. I am going to have to purchase around 30-40 images. I don't need massive file sizes, it's all for web and mediums will be enough to produce standard and @2x retina images.
The cheapest I can do this on iStock is £224.75 and that assumes all but 3 images are 'essentials' and not 'signature'. If I go to Shutterstock, it is £139... and I will still have about 30 images left in my allowance."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362684&messageid=7050689[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362684&messageid=7050689[/url])
Geeze. This almost supports they theory of mass exodus to SS AND......that IS is looking for a different segment of buyer base.
-
Posting here in case it disappears from the iS forum:
"I am a customer and a contributor (granted I don't have many files but I see things from both sides).
I am a web designer and currently working on a new project. I am going to have to purchase around 30-40 images. I don't need massive file sizes, it's all for web and mediums will be enough to produce standard and @2x retina images.
The cheapest I can do this on iStock is £224.75 and that assumes all but 3 images are 'essentials' and not 'signature'. If I go to Shutterstock, it is £139... and I will still have about 30 images left in my allowance."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362684&messageid=7050689[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362684&messageid=7050689[/url])
Geeze. This almost supports they theory of mass exodus to SS AND......that IS is looking for a different segment of buyer base.
Do you see a mass influx of sales at SS to go along with this?
-
Posting here in case it disappears from the iS forum: (added: removed already, which isn't entirely unreasonable as it names the competitor)
"I am a customer and a contributor (granted I don't have many files but I see things from both sides).
I am a web designer and currently working on a new project. I am going to have to purchase around 30-40 images. I don't need massive file sizes, it's all for web and mediums will be enough to produce standard and @2x retina images.
The cheapest I can do this on iStock is £224.75 and that assumes all but 3 images are 'essentials' and not 'signature'. If I go to Shutterstock, it is £139... and I will still have about 30 images left in my allowance."
That does not seem to make sense - since a one time Essentials subscription valid for 1 month would give them 250 images and costs only £129.
-
Posting here in case it disappears from the iS forum: (added: removed already, which isn't entirely unreasonable as it names the competitor)
"I am a customer and a contributor (granted I don't have many files but I see things from both sides).
I am a web designer and currently working on a new project. I am going to have to purchase around 30-40 images. I don't need massive file sizes, it's all for web and mediums will be enough to produce standard and @2x retina images.
The cheapest I can do this on iStock is £224.75 and that assumes all but 3 images are 'essentials' and not 'signature'. If I go to Shutterstock, it is £139... and I will still have about 30 images left in my allowance."
That does not seem to make sense - since a one time Essentials subscription valid for 1 month would give them 250 images and costs only £129.
I wondered about that, but couldn't find that deal. The plans and pricing page only has:
(http://www.lizworld.com/price.jpg)
And it's surely odd that they chose to delete the entire post rather than just delete SS's name, substitute it with 'elsewhere' (or somesuch) and post the link to the £129 deal, which would have been a good marketing move.
-
I wondered about that, but couldn't find that deal.
It's at Plans & pricing (http://www.istockphoto.com/plans-and-pricing) -- click on Choose plan.
-
I wondered about that, but couldn't find that deal.
It's at Plans & pricing ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/plans-and-pricing[/url]) -- click on Choose plan.
Why would anyone expect 'Choose Plan' to reveal a different, and in this case, more satisfactory deal? If I clicked 'Choose Plan', I would only expect to be allowed to let me choose the Essentials plan indicated on the plans and pricing page (rather than the Signature plan).
I did what I considered more logical, which was to click on 'Learn More about Subscriptions' which wasn't very informative. From that page, 'View Image Subscription pricing' took me back to the Plans and pricing page.
Further down 'Learn More about Subscriptions' page there's a link 'See Essential Plans' and that link just leads to the same Plans and pricing page.
Not helpful at all.
I guess they're using Mister Prosser's logic:
MISTER PROSSER:
But Mister Dent the plans have been available in the planning office for the last nine months!
ARTHUR DENT:
Yes! I went round to find them yesterday afternoon. You'd hadn't exactly gone out of your way to pull much attention to them have you? I mean, like actually telling anybody or anything.
MISTER PROSSER:
The plans were on display.
ARTHUR DENT:
Ah! And how many members of the public are in the habit of casually dropping around the local planning office of an evening?
MISTER PROSSER:
Er - ah!
ARTHUR DENT:
It's not exactly a noted social venue is it? And even if you had popped in on the off chance that some raving bureaucrat wanted to knock your house down, the plans weren't immediately obvious to the eye were they?
MISTER PROSSER:
That depends where you were looking.
ARTHUR DENT:
I eventually had to go down to the cellar!
MISTER PROSSER:
That's the display department.
ARTHUR DENT:
With a torch!
MISTER PROSSER:
The lights, had… probably gone.
ARTHUR DENT:
So had the stairs!
MISTER PROSSER:
Well you found the notice didn't you?
ARTHUR DENT:
Yes. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard”. Ever thought of going into advertising?
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams, ch 1.
Still - why didn't the mod point out the better iS deal? That was a bad miss of a marketing opportunity.
-
Still - why didn't the mod point out the better iS deal?
Lets hope that someone from customer relations contacted the client directly. Assuming the post was not simply someone indignation-trolling for the sake of (it seems a weird post given that the subscription offer is on the same pricing page). Wow those 1 month subs are cheap.
-
... It seems a weird post given that the subscription offer is on the same pricing page).
As I posted above, it's not at all easy to find.
-
... It seems a weird post given that the subscription offer is on the same pricing page).
As I posted above, it's not at all easy to find.
It would definitely be a good to see all of the pricing options on one page. So I guess I sort of agree.
That said, the as low as £99 headline offer is in great big letters and difficult not to notice.
-
Still - why didn't the mod point out the better iS deal?
Lets hope that someone from customer relations contacted the client directly. Assuming the post was not simply someone indignation-trolling for the sake of (it seems a weird post given that the subscription offer is on the same pricing page). Wow those 1 month subs are cheap.
There isn't a better deal. You can have the £100 a month deal as long as you pay £1,200 for it, it's a "one year plan" so you have to buy the whole year. If you want a one month plan it will cost you a lot more. So they can't argue with the guy and it's best not to tell your customers that it costs more to shop at iSTock.
-
not a single sale for already a month now.
-
... It seems a weird post given that the subscription offer is on the same pricing page).
As I posted above, it's not at all easy to find.
It would definitely be a good to see all of the pricing options on one page. So I guess I sort of agree.
That said, the as low as £99 headline offer is in great big letters and difficult not to notice.
The £99pm is for an annual plan, which the OP didn't want, and still, there is no logical way of finding the ones which aren't 'as low as' that.
I don't want subs anyway, but there we have it. :(
I don't buy expensive designer clothes/other goods (though I do try to buy Fair Trade where possible, which might well exclude a lot of 'designer' goods), so I'm not on the high moral ground to criticise price-conscious stock buyers, particularly when you consider that a high proportion of the essential files are available in several other places.
-
If you want a one month plan it will cost you a lot more. So they can't argue with the guy and it's best not to tell your customers that it costs more to shop at iSTock.
It's £129 for a single one-off 1 month. That's £129 for 250 images.
According to Sue's post the customer was concerned that the cheapest they can get 30-40 images is £224.75 at iStock vs a minimum spend of £139 at Shutterstock. But the actual figure is £129.
So it's cost less at iStock.
-
If you want a one month plan it will cost you a lot more. So they can't argue with the guy and it's best not to tell your customers that it costs more to shop at iSTock.
It's £129 for a single one-off 1 month. That's £129 for 250 images.
According to Sue's post the customer was concerned that the cheapest they can get 30-40 images is £224.75 at iStock vs a minimum spend of £139 at Shutterstock. But the actual figure is £129.
So it's cost less at iStock.
OK, I can't see that because all the pricings I get are in AED.
Oh .... I see, the poster assumes that because they only give the price for one-year contracts for subs that he will have to buy enough individual credits to meet his need - which would cost the £224.75 that he mentions.
-
Sue is right IMO that it is not clear enough. The eye goes to the words "one year plan" which are bolded next to the headline figure. A lazy reader like me can easily not notice the word "monthly" and fail to realise that other options exist.
-
Sue is right IMO that it is not clear enough. The eye goes to the words "one year plan" which are bolded next to the headline figure. A lazy reader like me can easily not notice the word "monthly" and fail to realise that other options exist.
It's not lazy reading to take it that way - it's exactly what it means, you can get a sub for $100 a month as long as you pay for a full year. They don't mention that you can get monthly subs for £124 unless you click on the link, and you won't click unless you are ready to commit for a full year.
It's a grade-A marketing fail.
They should advertise the £124 as the monthly rate and then trumpet the special discount to less than £100 for year-long subscriptions - unless, of course they want people not to buy the subs and to stick to the credits. It's a curious reversal of "bait and switch" they're doing, hiding the bait until you fall for the very expensive option.
-
I have posted a note about this on the subs thread at iS in the hope that perhaps they will have another look at the copy and layout.
-
Sue is right IMO that it is not clear enough. The eye goes to the words "one year plan" which are bolded next to the headline figure. A lazy reader like me can easily not notice the word "monthly" and fail to realise that other options exist.
It's not lazy reading to take it that way - it's exactly what it means, you can get a sub for $100 a month as long as you pay for a full year. They don't mention that you can get monthly subs for £124 unless you click on the link, and you won't click unless you are ready to commit for a full year.
It's a grade-A marketing fail.
They should advertise the £124 as the monthly rate and then trumpet the special discount to less than £100 for year-long subscriptions - unless, of course they want people not to buy the subs and to stick to the credits. It's a curious reversal of "bait and switch" they're doing, hiding the bait until you fall for the very expensive option.
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option". That's only 22 cents an image, if anything it's a very very cheap option. The other plan is 80 cents an image, 250 at $199.
You can also look at Shutterstock and the default selection, first choice, big savings plan is the $2,388 plan for 25 images a day plan. That comes to 26 cents per image (probably a lot more since not many people use their full quota or any of it on the weekends).
-
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option" etc etc
With respect, I think you are confusing the issue. You must surely see that the subscription offer, as presented, is confusing. Poor presentation makes it seem as if iStock is much more expensive than Shutterstock - unless the customer commits for a one year plan.
It is important to remember that a short commitment (i.e. a month rather than a whole year) can be more important to a customer than the lowest possible price. Or, putting it another way, that a long commitment to any sort of service can put people off.
The one month iStock subscription is actually a really good offer from the customer perspective. It's a cheap way to buy 250 images.
-
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option" etc etc
With respect, I think you are confusing the issue. You must surely see that the subscription offer, as presented, is confusing. Poor presentation makes it seem as if iStock is much more expensive than Shutterstock - unless the customer commits for a one year plan.
It is important to remember that a short commitment (i.e. a month rather than a whole year) can be more important to a customer than the lowest possible price. Or, putting it another way, that a long commitment to any sort of service can put people off.
The one month iStock subscription is actually a really good offer from the customer perspective. It's a cheap way to buy 250 images.
My guess from some of the things SS has said is that the one year plans are by far the most common. Also the one month plan at iStock is probably worse for buyers than the one month plan at SS, 250 images for $200 compared to 750 images for $249, if I was given that choice I would most likely opt for the 750 images.
-
the one month plan at iStock is probably worse for buyers than the one month plan at SS, 250 images for $200 compared to 750 images for $249, if I was given that choice I would most likely opt for the 750 images.
If you were the customer who Sue quoted then the iStock deal would represent a much better offer. Not many customers actually need 750 images in a month. That's overkill. Price of entry is often (mostly) going to be more important.
The iStock offer has a lower entry price. It's a good offer which they are failing to sell. And it's a better offer even if you need many fewer than 250 images (I doubt many users even need 250 images in a month).
-
the one month plan at iStock is probably worse for buyers than the one month plan at SS, 250 images for $200 compared to 750 images for $249, if I was given that choice I would most likely opt for the 750 images.
If you were the customer who Sue quoted then the iStock deal would represent a much better offer. Not many customers actually need 750 images in a month. That's overkill. Price of entry is often (mostly) going to be more important.
The iStock offer has a lower entry price. It's a good offer which they are failing to sell. And it's a better offer even if you need many fewer than 250 images (I doubt many users even need 250 images in a month).
From the pricing on the site iStock already looks like there is a lower price to entry. At SS it's $249-199 and you look at iStock and see $166. Wouldn't a buyer that wanted a one month plan still click to see what the other plans are since the year long plan is cheaper than Shutterstock's cheapest plan? Maybe I'm different than most buyers but I clicked on the choose plan button to see what other plans were offered. It might be better to label that button 'see all plans' or something else though.
-
It might be better to label that button 'see all plans' or something else though.
Exactly. Also - look again at the page. See how your eye tracks and what your brain does.
At a casual glance doesn't it look like clicking the big red (danger) button means committing to a bolded one year plan ? That's not a friendly 'more information' button.
And that would presumably be why the customer Sue quoted above ended up assuming that iStock was much more expensive than SS - without even considering a one month no commitment sub.
-
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option" etc etc
With respect, I think you are confusing the issue. You must surely see that the subscription offer, as presented, is confusing. Poor presentation makes it seem as if iStock is much more expensive than Shutterstock - unless the customer commits for a one year plan.
It is important to remember that a short commitment (i.e. a month rather than a whole year) can be more important to a customer than the lowest possible price. Or, putting it another way, that a long commitment to any sort of service can put people off.
The one month iStock subscription is actually a really good offer from the customer perspective. It's a cheap way to buy 250 images.
My guess from some of the things SS has said is that the one year plans are by far the most common. Also the one month plan at iStock is probably worse for buyers than the one month plan at SS, 250 images for $200 compared to 750 images for $249, if I was given that choice I would most likely opt for the 750 images.
Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year? Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits? If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.
-
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option" etc etc
With respect, I think you are confusing the issue. You must surely see that the subscription offer, as presented, is confusing. Poor presentation makes it seem as if iStock is much more expensive than Shutterstock - unless the customer commits for a one year plan.
It is important to remember that a short commitment (i.e. a month rather than a whole year) can be more important to a customer than the lowest possible price. Or, putting it another way, that a long commitment to any sort of service can put people off.
The one month iStock subscription is actually a really good offer from the customer perspective. It's a cheap way to buy 250 images.
My guess from some of the things SS has said is that the one year plans are by far the most common. Also the one month plan at iStock is probably worse for buyers than the one month plan at SS, 250 images for $200 compared to 750 images for $249, if I was given that choice I would most likely opt for the 750 images.
Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year? Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits? If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see. We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.
-
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option" etc etc
With respect, I think you are confusing the issue. You must surely see that the subscription offer, as presented, is confusing. Poor presentation makes it seem as if iStock is much more expensive than Shutterstock - unless the customer commits for a one year plan.
It is important to remember that a short commitment (i.e. a month rather than a whole year) can be more important to a customer than the lowest possible price. Or, putting it another way, that a long commitment to any sort of service can put people off.
The one month iStock subscription is actually a really good offer from the customer perspective. It's a cheap way to buy 250 images.
My guess from some of the things SS has said is that the one year plans are by far the most common. Also the one month plan at iStock is probably worse for buyers than the one month plan at SS, 250 images for $200 compared to 750 images for $249, if I was given that choice I would most likely opt for the 750 images.
On the surface, that may look like a better deal.
However, if you don't keep up your sub (in SS parlance, your account 'becomes delinquent') you lose the right to use these images. (iStock has similar restrictions). So you aren't allowed by the licence to stock up on images for future use. How they would monitor that, I can't imagine, but that's the rules.
-
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option". That's only 22 cents an image,
It's a "very expensive option" if you only want 25 microstock images. It's about $80 per image, not 22c an image.
-
Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year? Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits? If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see. We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.
So you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?
-
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option". That's only 22 cents an image,
It's a "very expensive option" if you only want 25 microstock images. It's about $80 per image, not 22c an image.
There are cheaper options if you want 25 images. I don't think a subscription is what a buyer would be looking at to get 25 images. Maybe I'm missing your point?
-
Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year? Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits? If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see. We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.
So you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?
I never said that.
-
Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year? Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits? If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see. We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.
So you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?
I never said that.
It's implied in what you said in reply to Pixelbytes' observation.
-
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option". That's only 22 cents an image,
It's a "very expensive option" if you only want 25 microstock images. It's about $80 per image, not 22c an image.
There are cheaper options if you want 25 images. I don't think a subscription is what a buyer would be looking at to get 25 images. Maybe I'm missing your point?
25-30 images is what the originally quoted post was about - a single project. It's not about the theoretically cheapest price for a user who willy-nilly uses up every download they're allowed, it's about the real-world experience of a particular buyer with particular - and quite ordinary - needs.
Edit - for the record, it was this: Posting here in case it disappears from the iS forum: (added: removed already, which isn't entirely unreasonable as it names the competitor)
"I am a customer and a contributor (granted I don't have many files but I see things from both sides).
I am a web designer and currently working on a new project. I am going to have to purchase around 30-40 images. I don't need massive file sizes, it's all for web and mediums will be enough to produce standard and @2x retina images.
The cheapest I can do this on iStock is £224.75 and that assumes all but 3 images are 'essentials' and not 'signature'. If I go to Shutterstock, it is £139... and I will still have about 30 images left in my allowance."
-
Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year? Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits? If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see. We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.
So you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?
I never said that.
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.
-
Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year? Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits? If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see. We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.
So you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?
+1 except you are quoting Tickstock not me :)
-
Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year? Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits? If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see. We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.
So you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?
+1 except you are quoting Tickstock not me :)
Sorry! The stacked quote system confuses me at times!
-
I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see. We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.
So you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?
I never said that.
It's implied in what you said in reply to Pixelbytes' observation.
Yes, I took it the same way.
-
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option". That's only 22 cents an image,
It's a "very expensive option" if you only want 25 microstock images. It's about $80 per image, not 22c an image.
There are cheaper options if you want 25 images. I don't think a subscription is what a buyer would be looking at to get 25 images. Maybe I'm missing your point?
25-30 images is what the originally quoted post was about - a single project. It's not about the theoretically cheapest price for a user who willy-nilly uses up every download they're allowed, it's about the real-world experience of a particular buyer with particular - and quite ordinary - needs.
Edit - for the record, it was this: Posting here in case it disappears from the iS forum: (added: removed already, which isn't entirely unreasonable as it names the competitor)
"I am a customer and a contributor (granted I don't have many files but I see things from both sides).
I am a web designer and currently working on a new project. I am going to have to purchase around 30-40 images. I don't need massive file sizes, it's all for web and mediums will be enough to produce standard and @2x retina images.
The cheapest I can do this on iStock is £224.75 and that assumes all but 3 images are 'essentials' and not 'signature'. If I go to Shutterstock, it is £139... and I will still have about 30 images left in my allowance."
The topic moved a bit since then I guess. 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)?
-
Our budget doesn't support this sort of pricing.
irrilevant.
they're a potential buyer only as long as they can afford our products.
-
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.