pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock's Alexa Rank continues to drop  (Read 31922 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #250 on: January 09, 2013, 15:19 »
+7
Yes, they overdone the prices, they went too far. They went to midstock. The question is could midstock sell well?
The answer is yes. There's a still a very big gap among istock and getty or corbis RF prices. There's a difference between 20  or even 150 and 500, to say something. But, when I've said yes, now I must say "no", because there's another thing factoring in: competitor's prices.
Maybe istock thougth other sites would follow (from a distance) their price rises. Should  the two or three big ones done so, there wouldn't be much difference in downloads.The only difference would be that everybody (exclusives, by selling more at istock, and indies by selling for more at their sites) would be making more money.
But, since other sites began to flourish on the shadow of istock's microstock original concept,  competitor's selling argument number one has always been: "Hey, we are cheaper!", and now is clear that this won't change.  Even worse, istock has its own "We are cheaper!" sites, TS and Photos.com. There are a lot of sites that lack the confidence in their product to raise prices, even a little bit, even leaving them a at distance from istock. One or two dit it very shyly years ago, but then stopped, even eventually rolled back. Istock has been always the only and one agency pushing this cart.
So, I never would say, as something has said here, that istock prices are ridiculous. Maybe they can be for people who shot pizzas and watermelons, but when you spent 1.000 or 2.000 dollars in models, locations, props etc for a session, istock prices come to me to respect my professionality and my work.  But, yes, in context, they are not realistic; that's something that isock excutives  already know.

It's supposed to be microstock. That's the market we're in and the 'microstock market' does not require $2K shoots __ ever.

If you choose to spend $2K on a microstock shoot (because you're so 'professional' and you want all this 'respect' stuff) and then can't make it pay at microstock prices then you are a fool. The true 'professional' know his market and adjusts his shoot budget accordingly.

Anyway, Istock/Getty didn't keep hiking their prices because they wanted to help you to do $2K shoots. They did it because they're a bunch of greedy f**ks.

Btw, I shoot pizzas. Lots of them. I buy them in cardboard boxes, stick them in the oven for 10 mins and then take a few shots before eating them. Delicious and financially rewarding. Pizzas are good things to shoot. They always turn up on time, are very cheap to work with, don't require hair or make-up (ok ... maybe a little olive oil dressing), are easy to 'direct' ... and often sell well. Most importantly they are profitable to shoot for microstock. You can keep your 'respect' __ I'll take the money all day long.


« Reply #251 on: January 09, 2013, 15:26 »
-2
You should try watermelons too.

« Reply #252 on: January 09, 2013, 15:45 »
+3
Forget watermelons or pizza, I wonder what it would cost to hire an iStock photographer throwing his crown against the wall for a model shoot?

Hopefully I can save cost by not having to hire any makeup, locations or props. Heck, if I time it right, maybe I can catch a few iStock togs doing it at the same time in unison. With the right DOF and HDR it might look creative enough to make it into Vetta.

I can see shots like this coming into high editorial demand for stock photo industry news articles come the beginning of spring.

Hopefully I can get the shots done on a reasonable budget as well to make the shoot cost affective. But hell, even if I can't, no matter, prices will be raised again by iStock soon enough to cover costs.

« Reply #253 on: January 09, 2013, 18:27 »
+3
You should try watermelons too.

They're on my shopping list. Thanks for the great idea. I'm going to spend $2K on them for a really big 'professional' shoot.

lisafx

« Reply #254 on: January 09, 2013, 18:34 »
0
You should try watermelons too.

They're on my shopping list. Thanks for the great idea. I'm going to spend $2K on them for a really big 'professional' shoot.

ROFLMAO!!  ;D

« Reply #255 on: January 09, 2013, 18:51 »
-2
You should try watermelons too.

They're on my shopping list. Thanks for the great idea. I'm going to spend $2K on them for a really big 'professional' shoot.

I bet you can do it. It's in the range of your capacities. And then, you'll be able to boast again about how many bags full with thousands and thousands of dollars you carry to your bank.

« Reply #256 on: January 09, 2013, 18:52 »
0
Pugh!  10 pages of this nonsense. I think we are getting hard up for topics?


Right, The fall of the site that created microstock is non-topic on microstockgroup.  We should talk more about RM.

   After all istock only had 75% market share as of 2010.   Istock going from top 200 site to outside the top 1000 is not an important topic. 

If you weren't exclusive from 2003-2011 you were crazy.  Now you are crazy if you are exclusive from 2012- ??. 

  The only problem is the "not all my eggs in one basket" is going to collapse pricing.  And the only differentiating factor will be pricing.  Look out below!!!!!


KB

« Reply #257 on: January 09, 2013, 19:39 »
+1
Does anyone know when exactly was the latest price rise on iStock? Last I knew an exclusive standard file was the same as a Photo+ non-exclusive. I wonder when the $7 XS price came in.
Exclusive XS prices increased from 2 credits to 3 credits on 14 March 2012, and then to 4 credits on 1 May. I dont find that price outrageous and wish other sites would charge more for their smallest sizes. (Or, put another way, I sure do like getting a minimum of about $2 on any sale.)

Also on 1 May 2012, S prices increased from 5 credits to 6 credits.

The last price change for XXXL prices was 17 Jan 2012, a decrease from 32 credits to 28 credits. Other regular exclusive prices have not changed from 2010, AFAIK (ignoring an increase and subsequent take-back of XXL prices).

Big price increases were in the E+ collection, where XS and S prices doubled during 2012, and the other sizes also saw large % increases. They probably felt they had to do that in preparation for pricing them so ridiculously high on GI.

« Reply #258 on: January 09, 2013, 20:23 »
+1
Exclusive XS prices increased from 2 credits to 3 credits on 14 March 2012, and then to 4 credits on 1 May. I dont find that price outrageous and wish other sites would charge more for their smallest sizes. (Or, put another way, I sure do like getting a minimum of about $2 on any sale.)

Also on 1 May 2012, S prices increased from 5 credits to 6 credits.

The last price change for XXXL prices was 17 Jan 2012, a decrease from 32 credits to 28 credits. Other regular exclusive prices have not changed from 2010, AFAIK (ignoring an increase and subsequent take-back of XXL prices).

Big price increases were in the E+ collection, where XS and S prices doubled during 2012, and the other sizes also saw large % increases. They probably felt they had to do that in preparation for pricing them so ridiculously high on GI.

Wow __ are you serious? You don't question the judgement of your agent distributor increasing the prices of some images ... by 100% ... in TWO stages over 6 weeks ... whilst in a major economic downturn ... when sales are clearly falling off a cliff ... and when their main competitor hasn't introduced a price increase for over 4 years? Huh? And you blame the competition for not following suit? You must be smoking the same exotic substances as your agent, sorry distributor.

Unfortunately your precious distributor isn't actually doing that much 'distributing' nowadays ... other than the 6000-odd images they're giving away for free by the millions on the Microsoft Office website anyway ... and which you don't even have any choice or control whatsoever about. I'm glad my main distributor, sorry, agent doesn't pull ridiculous stunts like that. I want my income to grow, like it does at SS, not be whittled away to nothing by the sh!t-for-brains idiots who are running, or more accurately destroying, Istock.

« Reply #259 on: January 09, 2013, 22:48 »
0
Quote
I sure do like getting a minimum of about $2 on any sale.

And here I was tickled pink to get a 9 cent sale!

lisafx

« Reply #260 on: January 09, 2013, 23:05 »
+3
Exclusive XS prices increased from 2 credits to 3 credits on 14 March 2012, and then to 4 credits on 1 May. I dont find that price outrageous and wish other sites would charge more for their smallest sizes. (Or, put another way, I sure do like getting a minimum of about $2 on any sale.)


Wow __ are you serious? You don't question the judgement of your agent distributor increasing the prices of some images ... by 100% ... in TWO stages over 6 weeks ... whilst in a major economic downturn ... when sales are clearly falling off a cliff ... and when their main competitor hasn't introduced a price increase for over 4 years? Huh? And you blame the competition for not following suit? You must be smoking the same exotic substances as your agent, sorry distributor.

It wasn't just those two stages of price rises.  I don't know when it happened or in how many stages, but somehow over the course of the year 2012 base prices for regular exclusive images went from $2 up to $7 because that's what it is now.  That's a really big jump in one year, and combined with the much larger price jumps in other collections, it is obvious why buyers have a problem with it. 

KB

« Reply #261 on: January 09, 2013, 23:11 »
0
Exclusive XS prices increased from 2 credits to 3 credits on 14 March 2012, and then to 4 credits on 1 May. I dont find that price outrageous and wish other sites would charge more for their smallest sizes. (Or, put another way, I sure do like getting a minimum of about $2 on any sale.)


Wow __ are you serious? You don't question the judgement of your agent distributor increasing the prices of some images ... by 100% ... in TWO stages over 6 weeks ... whilst in a major economic downturn ... when sales are clearly falling off a cliff ... and when their main competitor hasn't introduced a price increase for over 4 years? Huh? And you blame the competition for not following suit? You must be smoking the same exotic substances as your agent, sorry distributor.

It wasn't just those two stages of price rises.  I don't know when it happened or in how many stages, but somehow over the course of the year 2012 base prices for regular exclusive images went from $2 up to $7 because that's what it is now.  That's a really big jump in one year, and combined with the much larger price jumps in other collections, it is obvious why buyers have a problem with it.
Lisa, you might be getting credits and $s mixed up. I (try to) keep up with price changes, and my records show that the only price changes are the ones I mentioned.

Don't forget, until this past September, we saw prices in credits only, never $s. So what you are likely thinking of is 2 credits, and they are now 4 credits (which apparently is $7 at the cash price).

KB

« Reply #262 on: January 09, 2013, 23:22 »
+2
Wow __ are you serious? You don't question the judgement of your agent distributor increasing the prices of some images ... by 100% ... in TWO stages over 6 weeks ... whilst in a major economic downturn ... when sales are clearly falling off a cliff ... and when their main competitor hasn't introduced a price increase for over 4 years? Huh? And you blame the competition for not following suit? You must be smoking the same exotic substances as your agent, sorry distributor.
Of course I was just joking. I'm devastated that they raised prices, rather than cutting them like everyone else. I was so hoping they would give away my files for just pennies, and I cry every time I get a sale now.

I was so much happier every time I sold a file at XXXL size on DT or FT via a sub and got $0.38 or whatever it was. Yes, those were the days. Or the wonderful credit sales of $2 or even $3 sometimes on largest sizes. Gee, I really miss that.

I'm not an IS cheerleader; far from it, I pretty much hate them. But I am even more disgusted by the continuing lowering of prices and royalties on other sites. This won't end well for any of us, and if you think otherwise, it is you who must be smoking that exotic substance.

« Reply #263 on: January 10, 2013, 02:27 »
0
Quote
I sure do like getting a minimum of about $2 on any sale.

And here I was tickled pink to get a 9 cent sale!
I guess they must be paying exclusives 25 times as much as independents.

« Reply #264 on: January 10, 2013, 03:41 »
0
Pugh!  10 pages of this nonsense. I think we are getting hard up for topics?


Right, The fall of the site that created microstock is non-topic on microstockgroup.  We should talk more about RM.

   After all istock only had 75% market share as of 2010.   Istock going from top 200 site to outside the top 1000 is not an important topic. 

If you weren't exclusive from 2003-2011 you were crazy.  Now you are crazy if you are exclusive from 2012- ??. 

  The only problem is the "not all my eggs in one basket" is going to collapse pricing.  And the only differentiating factor will be pricing.  Look out below!!!!!

Well put!  just that as you see in this 11 page thread, the overwhelming majority havent grasped this fact. They are still bewildered and confused, their heads are still spinning around, joining every sheit agency they can lay their hands on thinking thats the answer.

« Reply #265 on: January 10, 2013, 04:11 »
0
But I am even more disgusted by the continuing lowering of prices and royalties on other sites.

Seriously __ which sites have lowered prices? Other than FT being forced to wind their neck back in on price increases by customer resistance, I'm not aware of any other instances. At least FT did have the wisdom to recognise the issue rather than 'doing an Istock' and ignoring their customers' concerns entirely.

« Reply #266 on: January 10, 2013, 04:29 »
+1
But I am even more disgusted by the continuing lowering of prices and royalties on other sites.

Seriously __ which sites have lowered prices? Other than FT being forced to wind their neck back in on price increases by customer resistance, I'm not aware of any other instances. At least FT did have the wisdom to recognise the issue rather than 'doing an Istock' and ignoring their customers' concerns entirely.
Introducing subs is lowering prices and there are many agencies that did introduce subs and now these sales are the majority on these sites for example FL and DT.

« Reply #267 on: January 10, 2013, 04:44 »
0
But I am even more disgusted by the continuing lowering of prices and royalties on other sites.

Seriously __ which sites have lowered prices? Other than FT being forced to wind their neck back in on price increases by customer resistance, I'm not aware of any other instances. At least FT did have the wisdom to recognise the issue rather than 'doing an Istock' and ignoring their customers' concerns entirely.
Introducing subs is lowering prices and there are many agencies that did introduce subs and now these sales are the majority on these sites for example FL and DT.
Even with subs my RPD at DT is still over double and sometimes treble what it is at IS and my earnings are also over double what they are at IS. My RPD at fotolia is about the same as at IS as are the earnings.

« Reply #268 on: January 10, 2013, 04:48 »
0
Introducing subs is lowering prices and there are many agencies that did introduce subs and now these sales are the majority on these sites for example FL and DT.

'Introducing subs' can hardly be described as 'lowering prices' being as SS has been offering them since 2004.

Of course the worse paying sub site, by some margin, is actually Istock's PP. If any agency is guilty of erroding contributors' income by their own actions, it is most definitely Istock.

« Reply #269 on: January 10, 2013, 05:51 »
0
Introducing subs is lowering prices and there are many agencies that did introduce subs and now these sales are the majority on these sites for example FL and DT.

'Introducing subs' can hardly be described as 'lowering prices' being as SS has been offering them since 2004.

Of course the worse paying sub site, by some margin, is actually Istock's PP. If any agency is guilty of erroding contributors' income by their own actions, it is most definitely Istock.
I don't defend istock actually I stopped submitting and deleted my port there long time ago never liked their attitude and their cumbersome upload process nor I like Thinkstock , but introducing subs on a site that before only offered per image sale is lowering prices.

« Reply #270 on: January 10, 2013, 07:07 »
0
Of course if it, that's not opinion, that's a fact.

lisafx

« Reply #271 on: January 10, 2013, 10:13 »
0

Lisa, you might be getting credits and $s mixed up. I (try to) keep up with price changes, and my records show that the only price changes are the ones I mentioned.

Don't forget, until this past September, we saw prices in credits only, never $s. So what you are likely thinking of is 2 credits, and they are now 4 credits (which apparently is $7 at the cash price).

I was only ever talking about $.  Apparently your post, which I quoted, was talking about credits, not dollars and I misread it. 

However, a buyer might very well have misread the situation similarly.  Even if the shift from displaying in credits to displaying in dollars wasn't a price rise, it probably appeared to be one. 

lisafx

« Reply #272 on: January 10, 2013, 10:15 »
+5
To be honest, after reading this thread, I can't understand why Istock/Getty has any defenders left.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1]
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1
[/url]

KB

« Reply #273 on: January 10, 2013, 11:44 »
0
Quote
I sure do like getting a minimum of about $2 on any sale.

And here I was tickled pink to get a 9 cent sale!
I guess they must be paying exclusives 25 times as much as independents.
A regular XS exclusive file is 4 credits vs 1 credit for a non-exclusive. Add in the difference in royalty rates, and that is 8x as much for the average XS sale (more for higher royalty exclusives, a little less for base royalty exclusives).

KB

« Reply #274 on: January 10, 2013, 11:51 »
0
But I am even more disgusted by the continuing lowering of prices and royalties on other sites.

Seriously __ which sites have lowered prices? Other than FT being forced to wind their neck back in on price increases by customer resistance, I'm not aware of any other instances. At least FT did have the wisdom to recognise the issue rather than 'doing an Istock' and ignoring their customers' concerns entirely.
You may be right that prices have not gone down. Sites followed iStock's lead in cutting commissions, but unfortunately did not follow with any price increases to try to make up the difference (in theory). But I do know that before I became exclusive my RPD was dropping across most other sites (SS excluded), as sub sales continued to become a larger part of the overall sales total.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2982 Views
Last post August 06, 2008, 04:56
by leaf
49 Replies
23280 Views
Last post September 09, 2009, 01:47
by RacePhoto
39 Replies
6480 Views
Last post June 26, 2013, 12:07
by Ron
32 Replies
6376 Views
Last post January 13, 2015, 21:58
by tickstock
1 Replies
1874 Views
Last post July 28, 2016, 16:51
by CJH Photography

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle