MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock's Agency Collection Pricing  (Read 23737 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: October 14, 2010, 21:07 »
0
Agency Collection are also sold at Getty and Jupiter, etc., the buyers are comfortable with the marcro prices there, I assume. If some IS buyers won't buy, someone else will.

Some non IS exclusives also sell the same images in macro and micro sites. If so, why does IS have to maintain the micro prices forever? I don't get it.


« Reply #26 on: October 14, 2010, 21:31 »
0
This isn't about the pricing of the Agency Collection on the existing Getty sites.

This is about existing (exclusive) content on istockphoto.com that cost one price yesterday and a very different price today and whether buyers have been notified about that. When buyers put files into a lightbox and later go to purchase and the price is 10X (or 5X higher), the Vetta experience tells us many of them get very upset.

Regardless of whether the files are worth the new price, the buyers IMO deserve to be notified about this rather than just find out when they get sticker shock.

RacePhoto

« Reply #27 on: October 14, 2010, 21:40 »
0
This isn't about the pricing of the Agency Collection on the existing Getty sites.

This is about existing (exclusive) content on istockphoto.com that cost one price yesterday and a very different price today and whether buyers have been notified about that. When buyers put files into a lightbox and later go to purchase and the price is 10X (or 5X higher), the Vetta experience tells us many of them get very upset.

Regardless of whether the files are worth the new price, the buyers IMO deserve to be notified about this rather than just find out when they get sticker shock.

This could be enough to make me want to go exclusive. Good pay and prices for exclusive images. It would be sad to lose SS, BigStock, ThinkStock and StockXpert. (well SS yes, the rest not at all)

« Reply #28 on: October 14, 2010, 22:33 »
0
When you shop elsewhere, be it Walmart or Saks Fifth Avenue, if you decided that you wanted to buy something last week and didn't buy, then the price is different this week, do you get upset at the store for not notifying you? You likely just regret that you didn't buy when the price was better or change your mind about buying, right?

This isn't about the pricing of the Agency Collection on the existing Getty sites.

This is about existing (exclusive) content on istockphoto.com that cost one price yesterday and a very different price today and whether buyers have been notified about that. When buyers put files into a lightbox and later go to purchase and the price is 10X (or 5X higher), the Vetta experience tells us many of them get very upset.

Regardless of whether the files are worth the new price, the buyers IMO deserve to be notified about this rather than just find out when they get sticker shock.

« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2010, 01:01 »
0
When you shop elsewhere, be it Walmart or Saks Fifth Avenue, if you decided that you wanted to buy something last week and didn't buy, then the price is different this week, do you get upset at the store for not notifying you? You likely just regret that you didn't buy when the price was better or change your mind about buying, right?

This isn't about the pricing of the Agency Collection on the existing Getty sites.

This is about existing (exclusive) content on istockphoto.com that cost one price yesterday and a very different price today and whether buyers have been notified about that. When buyers put files into a lightbox and later go to purchase and the price is 10X (or 5X higher), the Vetta experience tells us many of them get very upset.

Regardless of whether the files are worth the new price, the buyers IMO deserve to be notified about this rather than just find out when they get sticker shock.

Yes, I would be upset. Probably not because the store did not notify me but because something I chose to buy for $5 now costs $50. I would leave the store without buying the thing (obviously) and would promise myself to never enter the store again.

« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2010, 01:46 »
0
and didn't istock say they were raising the prices for vetta at like the end of the year (or something like that) then they brought it forward with no warning. 

Like saying come in and buy this widget for $1 till the end of the year and when you get there oh sorry we changed our minds and did it now.

« Reply #31 on: October 15, 2010, 01:51 »
0
Fair enough, Danicek. You and the store are entitled to make each's own decision and live with the consequence.

C'est la vie.

When you shop elsewhere, be it Walmart or Saks Fifth Avenue, if you decided that you wanted to buy something last week and didn't buy, then the price is different this week, do you get upset at the store for not notifying you? You likely just regret that you didn't buy when the price was better or change your mind about buying, right?

This isn't about the pricing of the Agency Collection on the existing Getty sites.

This is about existing (exclusive) content on istockphoto.com that cost one price yesterday and a very different price today and whether buyers have been notified about that. When buyers put files into a lightbox and later go to purchase and the price is 10X (or 5X higher), the Vetta experience tells us many of them get very upset.

Regardless of whether the files are worth the new price, the buyers IMO deserve to be notified about this rather than just find out when they get sticker shock.

Yes, I would be upset. Probably not because the store did not notify me but because something I chose to buy for $5 now costs $50. I would leave the store without buying the thing (obviously) and would promise myself to never enter the store again.

« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2010, 03:27 »
0
When you shop elsewhere, be it Walmart or Saks Fifth Avenue, if you decided that you wanted to buy something last week and didn't buy, then the price is different this week, do you get upset at the store for not notifying you? You likely just regret that you didn't buy when the price was better or change your mind about buying, right?



This is not the same kind of situation, a designer will most likely be using comps to show their client a variety of proposals for their project, be it a flier, brochure, advert etc etc.

In doing so the images chosen will be have selected to meet an agreed price point.  Come client approval the designer then returns to buy the approved images and finds the image has increased in price by a matter of magnitudes if it had been placed, without prior warning, in Vetta or Agency.

This has happened where I work. Not everyone this happens to will seek out some redress - they'll make a mental note to buy elsewhere.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2010, 03:30 by thesentinel »

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2010, 07:14 »
0
I don't see why these images are any worse then wetta, which is childish garbage mostly. These are at least kinda nice, but nothing really special either.

« Reply #34 on: October 15, 2010, 08:14 »
0
Not only the girl images have wrong keywords, the man image too (it's a great image, but some keywords are wrong): table (irrelevant here), failure (the file doesn't show that), my favorite: wristwatch (that's my winner): we don't see any wristwatch, frowning, complaining.

I just don't get how in the world these keywords have been accepted, it doesn't happen like that in my world. And the funny thing: among all these keywords, a relevant one "glasses" is not there, I guess the contributor has confused table with glasses................. Oh well............

« Reply #35 on: October 15, 2010, 11:30 »
0
All that is happening on Istock is actually the beginning of a big merger. (Istock and Getty).

Price on Istock are rising to get closer to those of Getty...
Percentage to are lowering to get closer to those of Getty...
Files from Getty are starting to sell on Istock...(Agency)
Files from Istock are already selling on Getty...(Vetta)

Both companies must have tremendous pressure from the owners to simplify things, and merging into one entity, is the best way to improve efficiency and profitability...

« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2010, 11:49 »
0
You may be correct. I have come to pretty much the same conclusion.
However I feel that it would be a grave error for Getty and iStock to lose their separate identities.

« Reply #37 on: October 15, 2010, 11:54 »
0
Obviously there's some cross-over but it will never be a full-on 'merger'. Both Getty and the Istock brands are too valuable. You've also got IS content on Thinkstock too. It's moving more into the three tiers of micro-sub/micro-mid/macro.

« Reply #38 on: October 15, 2010, 13:16 »
0
It makes sense.

Istock's current technical standard has perhaps been at par with Getty already, now they are boosting the creative and artistic values of the images and sell each other's images.... Looks like it is happening.

All that is happening on Istock is actually the beginning of a big merger. (Istock and Getty).

Price on Istock are rising to get closer to those of Getty...
Percentage to are lowering to get closer to those of Getty...
Files from Getty are starting to sell on Istock...(Agency)
Files from Istock are already selling on Getty...(Vetta)

Both companies must have tremendous pressure from the owners to simplify things, and merging into one entity, is the best way to improve efficiency and profitability...

« Reply #39 on: October 17, 2010, 09:15 »
0
So it looks like iStock exclusive photos are being added to the Agency collection now. I don't know if they were regular collection or Vetta photos, but I don't expect that to go over well with buyers who have lightboxed these photos for projects with a budget. Not only that, but, as with Vetta, we see similar photos from the same series in the regular collection. So, as with Vetta, what makes those particular photos worth more? I'd love to hear iStock's reasoning some photos costs 1000% more than others in the same series.

And it looks like they are also adding files irrespective of how many downloads they have...unlike Vetta, where they supposedly weren't adding anything with flames.

Really scratching my head. It will be interesting to see what happens with the downloads to those files.

Hmm...those with images in a series in both Agency and regular collections might want to take their links to "More in this series" off their Agency photos so the scam is less obvious. :D
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 09:30 by caspixel »

« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2010, 11:12 »
0
snip
Hmm...those with images in a series in both Agency and regular collections might want to take their links to "More in this series" off their Agency photos so the scam is less obvious. :D

I don't think IS/Getty cares one way or another if contributors think this is a scam or if buyers think this is a scam. Their attitude is, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. That's what happens when one company is allowed to get big and powerful. They know that contributors aren't going to go anywhere and they know that most buyers aren't going anywhere. In fact their basic marketing plan is to deceive this way. There will be a certain percentage of buyers who stumble on the IS/Getty agency collection, find the image they are looking for, and purchase it at $300, instead of looking around for the same image for $3. They are banking on the fact that some consumers are just too busy/lazy to do the searching.

I, for one, am hoping that their plan backfires.

« Reply #41 on: October 17, 2010, 11:13 »
0
I'd love to hear iStock's reasoning some photos costs 1000% more than others in the same series.

They are tested with Getty's patent 'Greed-ometer'. If the flickering needle indicates that they should get away with it then up goes the price.

vonkara

« Reply #42 on: October 17, 2010, 11:38 »
0

Both companies must have tremendous pressure from the owners to simplify things, and merging into one entity, is the best way to improve efficiency and profitability...

That's a refreshing post about Istock. I hope you are right because I am on the boat, with my life belt on.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 11:41 by Vonkara »

« Reply #43 on: October 17, 2010, 15:47 »
0


I don't think IS/Getty cares one way or another if contributors think this is a scam or if buyers think this is a scam. Their attitude is, if you don't like it, go somewhere else. That's what happens when one company is allowed to get big and powerful. They know that contributors aren't going to go anywhere and they know that most buyers aren't going anywhere. In fact their basic marketing plan is to deceive this way. There will be a certain percentage of buyers who stumble on the IS/Getty agency collection, find the image they are looking for, and purchase it at $300, instead of looking around for the same image for $3. They are banking on the fact that some consumers are just too busy/lazy to do the searching.

I, for one, am hoping that their plan backfires.

I hope it backfires too. I hate that attitude and it's far too prevalent in big business these days.

pdx

« Reply #44 on: October 17, 2010, 15:57 »
0

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #45 on: October 17, 2010, 17:35 »
0
This could be enough to make me want to go exclusive. Good pay and prices for exclusive images. It would be sad to lose SS, BigStock, ThinkStock and StockXpert. (well SS yes, the rest not at all)
It's not really 'good pay and prices for exclusive images'. They have to be 'lifestyle' images and apparently have to be shot in that 'stock-y' way. But, as is seen by the two examples on this thread, they don't need to be exclusive, and a lot of 'exclusive' images won't be considered (not stock-y/cheesy lifestyle)

« Reply #46 on: October 17, 2010, 19:15 »
0
how does stuff like this make it through the queue?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14262833-businessman-sleeping-on-sofa.php


Whoops, that's just a little keyword/description glitch that occurred when the image was added to the database.

Should be titled, "Agency Collection contributor waiting for earnings to pile up"

LOL

« Reply #47 on: October 18, 2010, 09:30 »
0
It's not really 'good pay and prices for exclusive images'. They have to be 'lifestyle' images and apparently have to be shot in that 'stock-y' way. But, as is seen by the two examples on this thread, they don't need to be exclusive, and a lot of 'exclusive' images won't be considered (not stock-y/cheesy lifestyle)

I think the criteria is more that they're after unique, quality and underrepresented images. Its a much more polished look than vetta, but that's not to say that they're stocky or cheesy. I suspect (one of) the official criteria is that they're not meant to accept "stocky" images.

I really can't understand why people are complaining that the content is going to be coming from regular IS contributors rather than just from outside. Its not that different from what fotolia is doing, except that their stuff sourced from outside is twice the price and they otherwise limit entry to emerald and above contributors.

« Reply #48 on: October 18, 2010, 09:38 »
0
how does stuff like this make it through the queue?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14262833-businessman-sleeping-on-sofa.php


Whoops, that's just a little keyword/description glitch that occurred when the image was added to the database.

Should be titled, "Agency Collection contributor waiting for earnings to pile up"

LOL


Some images from this particular contributor have already been bought:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&userID=6549584&perPage=200&showContributor=true&showDownload=true&order=7&within=1

« Reply #49 on: October 18, 2010, 10:39 »
0
how does stuff like this make it through the queue?
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-14262833-businessman-sleeping-on-sofa.php

Whoops, that's just a little keyword/description glitch that occurred when the image was added to the database.

Should be titled, "Agency Collection contributor waiting for earnings to pile up"

LOL


Wow that image is complete with several publisher logos as well as author names etc, all clear to see.

"Every photograph in the Agency Collection will go through our regular inspection process."  Sure.  Just like: "In search and Best Match the images will be weighted fairly and will not have a heavier weight than any other file."  Utter rubbish.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
215 Replies
41695 Views
Last post September 20, 2010, 07:06
by Microbius
6 Replies
4682 Views
Last post September 17, 2010, 01:08
by leaf
10 Replies
3944 Views
Last post October 28, 2010, 11:34
by WarrenPrice
Agency collection? oh! boy!

Started by lagereek « 1 2 ... 5 6 » iStockPhoto.com

125 Replies
28305 Views
Last post December 04, 2010, 13:45
by jbarber873
8 Replies
4146 Views
Last post June 14, 2013, 13:17
by heywoody

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle