Thanks for the numbers

$7 was for exclusive XS and $48 was for an XXXL file - L (exclusive) is $25

Yahoo says $25 should be about 15.60 pounds - 17.75 is  a pretty hefty "fee".

Here ya go Liz. Feel free to incorporate it into your comparison if you want. 

Here's a chart (with the UK half from Liz)

I think buyers were/are shocked seeing prices in plain language. I've supported fair pricing and increases, but clearly we're well past the boundary. I think buyers simply know they can get what they need for less elsewhere. Prices are just too high now. With more and more usage online rather than for print materials, the quality differential isn't as important anymore, assuming there is still a differential. I think the quality gap has closed significantly thanks to the influx of poor quality Getty content and improved standards on other sites like SS. you can still find an awful lot of garbage on SS but same goes for iStock today too.
as an iStock exclusive, we're up the creek if things continue as is. but, it's too early to tell after the holidays. 2013 certainly hasn't begun in any favourable manner for exclusives, quite the opposite.

One of the most disconcerting matters in all of this is that, in part, the fate of our future success on iStock (or lack of at this point) comes down to some celestial entity named "Search Fairy".

How can a self respecting contributor look one of their friends in the eye, when they ask how iStock is going, and reply "Well, you see, it all comes down to the Search Fairy".

What an insult to intelligence and next friends will be asking me if putting teeth under my pillow has helped my sales in any way and what my fortune teller has to say about all this.

If you really stop and think about the way iStock is running things at this point you almost have to question your sanity for continuing to take a serious approach when in fact they certainly aren't.

And so if the control of how content is displayed to buyers on the iStock web sites comes down to a fairy, then I can just imagine how much of a goat rope things really are.

It's crazy to see the traffic rank go from 200 to 1000 in the last year.  It is over!!!!   Look at the reach dropped from .04 to .01 that is half as much buyers in that time.   Shutterstock has replaced IS in a total arse kicking.   I can't say I blame buyers.  Istock owners did get 4 billion in cash out of the place.  The carylse group must be pooping  their pants about now.  FT and DT will also pass them along with Yuris site. 
 
    RIP Istock!!!!!!!

For the sake of history, in 2004 the sales prices were 50c, $1 and $1.50 for S, M and L (that was all the sizes then). Commissions were 10c, 20c and 30c ... and the return per file at iS was above what it is today.

Quote from: aspp on January 09, 2013, 10:18

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on January 09, 2013, 09:42

It's crazy to see the traffic rank go from 200 to 1000 in the last year.  It is over!!!!   Look at the reach dropped from .02 to .01 that is half as much buyers in that time.   Shutterstock has replaced IS in a total arse kicking.   I can't say I blame buyers.  Istock owners did get 4 billion in cash out of the place.  The carylse group must be pooping  their pants about now.  FT and DT will also pass them along with Yuris site. 
 
    RIP Istock!!!!!!!

#ripistock

We've been there before;

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istockphoto-com-2000-2011-r-i-p/

But history can be quite funny. Look what Vlad the Imp said back then:

Quote

The last update on iStock forums confirmed that they are one foot in the grave already.

I don't think so. They're moving upmarket and dumping a lot of amateur deadweight contributors. Look at the people who are making the most noise in the forums, non-exclusives and low selling amateurs mostly, making big noises about 'taking their clients with them when they leave'-yeah, right! They wish.

And look what happened since.

But history can be quite funny. Look what Vlad the Imp said back then

Did I say that? Just proves that even the most intelligent get it wrong sometimes, ( better just add this for the benefit of those with an irony filter  ) although I have to say I don't personally believe that IS's current position was brought about by a few people badmouthing them to their clients, but by a mixture of world economic downturn and crazy management decisions, too numerous to mention. I have to say I am still making enough to support a family and pay a fairly hefty mortgage, although I am back to freelancing far more seriously now, but I am definitely eyeing up the opposition and am already accepted ( but with my portfolio locked) at the main alternative site.

iStock's traffic rank on Alexa yesterday hit a 2 year low when their rank fell to over 1,000. As late as October of last year they were still ranked at about 200. That is a massive drop in traffic when a site goes from the 200th position to over 1,000 in a matter of just a few months. That sounds like a total buyer exodus to me.

Even during the holiday season of December 2011 their rank never went above 600 and it also bounced back quickly the next month to around the 250 level come January 2012. But here we are in January 2013 and their rank is over 1,000!

Their official Alexa rank is 517 at the moment, but that is an average of 3 months and various other factors that don't really reflect what has happened in the last few weeks. But if the site visitor traffic stays the way it is now for the next 2 months, then their 3 month average ranking will go over 1,000 as well.

It is a dire situation. People on the IS forums are still talking about best match changes, hiding the $$ prices, and other tweaks. I don't think they get it, nor do I really see how any of that will make a lick of difference if buyers aren't searching on the site to begin with. The real question to iStock at this point should be "How are you going to bring the traffic back?". Personally I don't think they can. It's gone into free-fall already.

iStock's traffic rank on Alexa yesterday hit a 2 year low when their rank fell to over 1,000. As late as October of last year they were still ranked at about 200. That is a massive drop in traffic when a site goes from the 200th position to over 1,000 in a matter of just a few months. That sounds like a total exodus to me.

Even during the holiday season of December 2011 their rank never went above 600 and it also bounced back quickly the next month to around the 250 level come January 2012. But here we are in January 2013 and their rank is over 1,000!

Their official Alexa rank is 517 at the moment, but that is an average of 3 months and various other factors that don't really reflect what has happened in the last few weeks. But if the site visitor traffic stays the way it is now for the next 2 months, then their 3 month average ranking will go over 1,000 as well.

It is a dire situation. People on the IS forums are still talking about best match changes, hiding the $$ prices, and other tweaks. I don't think they get it, nor do I really see how any of that will make a lick of difference if buyers aren't searching on the site to begin with. The real question to iStock at this point should be "How are you going to bring the traffic back?". Personally I don't think they can. It's gone into free-fall already.

It's even worse when you consider that the 'contributor' part of Istock's traffic has probably remained comparatively unchanged. Not sure what proportion of total site traffic contributors might be though.

About vlad_the_imp... Isn't he Lobo? Is Lobo leaving iStock?

Lobo is pieman. He doesn't have any portfolio as far as I know, so Vlad is some other lovely human

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.