Author Topic: How does the NEW iStock stack up against Shutterstock? (Read 36528 times)

Shelma1 · « **Reply #50 on:** September 22, 2014, 12:52 »

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?

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #51 on:** September 22, 2014, 13:47 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 22, 2014, 12:52

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.

michaeldb · « **Reply #52 on:** September 22, 2014, 18:44 »

Quote from: fotoVoyager on September 22, 2014, 13:47

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 22, 2014, 12:52
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?

PixelBytes · « **Reply #53 on:** September 22, 2014, 23:26 »

Quote from: michaeldb on September 22, 2014, 18:44

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.

mojaric · « **Reply #54 on:** September 23, 2014, 03:42 »

sales are back again to me....let's see how october will be

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #55 on:** September 23, 2014, 03:55 »

Quote from: mojaric on September 23, 2014, 03:42

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.

mojaric · « **Reply #56 on:** September 23, 2014, 05:48 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 23, 2014, 03:55

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...

munrotoo · « **Reply #57 on:** September 23, 2014, 07:47 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on September 18, 2014, 18:40

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.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #58 on:** September 23, 2014, 09:38 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 22, 2014, 12:52

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #59 on:** September 26, 2014, 07:40 »

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

Mantis · « **Reply #60 on:** September 26, 2014, 07:50 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 26, 2014, 07:40

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."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362684&messageid=7050689

Geeze. This almost supports they theory of mass exodus to SS AND......that IS is looking for a different segment of buyer base.

tickstock · « **Reply #61 on:** September 26, 2014, 08:44 »

Quote from: Mantis on September 26, 2014, 07:50

Quote from: ShadySue on September 26, 2014, 07:40
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."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362684&messageid=7050689

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?

bunhill · « **Reply #62 on:** September 26, 2014, 09:13 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 26, 2014, 07:40

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #63 on:** September 26, 2014, 09:23 »

Quote from: bunhill on September 26, 2014, 09:13

Quote from: ShadySue on September 26, 2014, 07:40
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:

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.

bunhill · « **Reply #64 on:** September 26, 2014, 09:28 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 26, 2014, 09:23

I wondered about that, but couldn't find that deal.

It's at Plans & pricing -- click on Choose plan.

ShadySue · « **Reply #65 on:** September 26, 2014, 09:38 »

Quote from: bunhill on September 26, 2014, 09:28

Quote from: ShadySue on September 26, 2014, 09:23
I wondered about that, but couldn't find that deal.

It's at Plans & pricing -- 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.

bunhill · « **Reply #66 on:** September 26, 2014, 09:55 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 26, 2014, 09:38

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #67 on:** September 26, 2014, 10:10 »

Quote from: bunhill link=topic=23447.msg395126#msg395126

... 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.

bunhill · « **Reply #68 on:** September 26, 2014, 10:40 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 26, 2014, 10:10

Quote from: bunhill link=topic=23447.msg395126#msg395126
... 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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #69 on:** September 26, 2014, 10:47 »

Quote from: bunhill on September 26, 2014, 09:55

Quote from: ShadySue on September 26, 2014, 09:38
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.

saschadueser · « **Reply #70 on:** September 26, 2014, 10:52 »

not a single sale for already a month now.

ShadySue · « **Reply #71 on:** September 26, 2014, 10:59 »

Quote from: bunhill on September 26, 2014, 10:40

Quote from: ShadySue on September 26, 2014, 10:10
Quote from: bunhill link=topic=23447.msg395126#msg395126
... 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.

bunhill · « **Reply #72 on:** September 26, 2014, 11:04 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 26, 2014, 10:47

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.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #73 on:** September 26, 2014, 11:08 »

Quote from: bunhill on September 26, 2014, 11:04

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 26, 2014, 10:47
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.

bunhill · « **Reply #74 on:** September 26, 2014, 11:14 »

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How does the NEW iStock stack up against Shutterstock? (Read 36528 times)

Shelma1

fotoVoyager

michaeldb

PixelBytes

mojaric

BaldricksTrousers

mojaric

munrotoo

sgoodwin4813

ShadySue

Mantis

tickstock

bunhill

ShadySue

bunhill

ShadySue

bunhill

ShadySue

bunhill

BaldricksTrousers

saschadueser

ShadySue

bunhill

BaldricksTrousers

bunhill

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors