MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Istock's back  (Read 26120 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #125 on: September 16, 2014, 06:52 »
+3
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.  "

if they can't afford micro images i'm sorry but there's no reason for them to stay in a business where they require stock images, simple as that, and good riddance.

pursueing cheaper options ? where ? how ? the other agencies will move in the same direction sooner or later.

web resolution ? 1024px screens are the minimum even on cheap smartphones nowadays.

Oh, stop being so melodramatic.  There are lots of people who would like to pay for an image they can use, just like people want to pay $1 for a song on itunes, to be legal.

Just out of interest why do you still support DP when they pay a 3% royalty? It seems at odds with why you support Stocksy.


« Reply #126 on: September 16, 2014, 07:03 »
+3
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.  "

if they can't afford micro images i'm sorry but there's no reason for them to stay in a business where they require stock images, simple as that, and good riddance.

pursueing cheaper options ? where ? how ? the other agencies will move in the same direction sooner or later.

web resolution ? 1024px screens are the minimum even on cheap smartphones nowadays.

Oh, stop being so melodramatic.  There are lots of people who would like to pay for an image they can use, just like people want to pay $1 for a song on itunes, to be legal.

Just out of interest why do you still support DP when they pay a 3% royalty? It seems at odds with why you support Stocksy.
Yeah.

In my eyes, in general, anyone who supports DP by giving them new images is on no (moral) high ground to preach to other people (who don't). :D

« Reply #127 on: September 16, 2014, 07:11 »
0
To see so many customers complain on social media sites is really sad. I don't think I have ever seen customers so upset with istock ever.

I wonder if the people in the marketing tower  truly believed the customers would love the new plan. Are they really so far removed from reality?

Yuri was certainly enthusiastic. I wonder how it is working for him now.

It's early of course. I could imagine that a lot of traditional macro customers will "migrate downstream" to istock.

From other microstock agencies? Not really. The uncertainty in how istock comes up with abrupt changes would put me off.

Did anyone in istocks management really believe they could hide a 300% increase in price and nobody would notice?

Fotolias sales team must be welcoming an early christmas season this year.

By the way on Fotolia, my income is given as credits, and then later I convert them to euros for moneybookers (the reverse system to istock). So my account always has credits available to buy files without having to convert earnings to credits. Files start at 1 credit. So for artist this is a good place to buy stock if you need it.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2014, 07:19 by cobalt »

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #128 on: September 16, 2014, 07:28 »
+8
The new iS pricing could work well if the collections weren't so messed up.

Looks like 90% to 100% of exclusive portfolios have moved to Signature irrespective of any quality or merit attached to the work.

The images really need to reflect the prices, being exclusive doesn't automatically make you a good photographer or illustrator.

Vetta and Agency are completely buried in all kinds of terrible images, I really thought they were going to restructure the collection properly before the launch. If I was on the board of directors I would be spitting feathers.

« Reply #129 on: September 16, 2014, 07:39 »
+2
I think we all agree that what is really necessary - sort the collection by quality - is what they are refusing to do.

Somehow they are running away from the most obvious thing to do and instead hope they can find some cosmetic design change or computer algorithm that will do it instead.

As an indie I am earning a little more money, not drastically more though. Looks like many customers have old credits with low value.

Valo

« Reply #130 on: September 16, 2014, 08:01 »
+1
If I was on the board of directors I would be spitting feathers.
Board of directors dont give a ....

I thought that was pretty obvious by now.

« Reply #131 on: September 16, 2014, 08:38 »
+3
Just out of interest why do you still support DP when they pay a 3% royalty? It seems at odds with why you support Stocksy.

A: My response was to the idea that small buyers do not deserve the opportunity to license content legally.  It had nothing to do with who pays what royalty, so I'm not sure where you pulled that out of.
B: I don't participate in the program that you are referring to, so I don't support it.

« Reply #132 on: September 16, 2014, 09:15 »
0
in the new system are there any guidelines for how they determine how many credits a vector illustration is worth or is this still just up to the scouts? do you think they tend to lower credit worth of non-exclusives?

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #133 on: September 16, 2014, 09:22 »
0
Just out of interest why do you still support DP when they pay a 3% royalty? It seems at odds with why you support Stocksy.

A: My response was to the idea that small buyers do not deserve the opportunity to license content legally.  It had nothing to do with who pays what royalty, so I'm not sure where you pulled that out of.
B: I don't participate in the program that you are referring to, so I don't support it.

Sorry, my comment was random I just saw the DP logo on your post.

How did you opt out of the DP subs programme?

« Reply #134 on: September 16, 2014, 09:34 »
0
I'm confused. I've had four sales today and the royalty is different for all four.

$1.11
$1.35
$1.29
$1.37  Why are the royalties different if they are all one credit? (non-exclusive)

« Reply #135 on: September 16, 2014, 09:35 »
0
I'm confused. I've had four sales today and the royalty is different for all four.

$1.11
$1.35
$1.29
$1.37  Why are the royalties different if they are all one credit? (non-exclusive)
It's been like that for a long long time.  Depends what the buyer pays.

« Reply #136 on: September 16, 2014, 09:35 »
0
I'm confused. I've had four sales today and the royalty is different for all four.

$1.11
$1.35
$1.29
$1.37  Why are the royalties different if they are all one credit? (non-exclusive)

Because the buyers paid different sums for their credit packages?

« Reply #137 on: September 16, 2014, 09:43 »
+1
I do not use to buy ither people's pictures, but some times ago I do. For that reason I still had 10 credits in my account. With 10 credits, previously, you did know that you could by "some images". Now I have 2 new credits and I know that I can buy only two images. In my opinion, the feeling of the buyers with many credits in their accounts, is that, with this conversion, thay have lost they money...

« Reply #138 on: September 16, 2014, 09:44 »
+3
Just out of interest why do you still support DP when they pay a 3% royalty? It seems at odds with why you support Stocksy.

A: My response was to the idea that small buyers do not deserve the opportunity to license content legally.  It had nothing to do with who pays what royalty, so I'm not sure where you pulled that out of.
B: I don't participate in the program that you are referring to, so I don't support it.

Sorry, my comment was random I just saw the DP logo on your post.

How did you opt out of the DP subs programme?

I asked and said I wasn't interested otherwise.

Shelma1

« Reply #139 on: September 16, 2014, 10:31 »
+1
in the new system are there any guidelines for how they determine how many credits a vector illustration is worth or is this still just up to the scouts? do you think they tend to lower credit worth of non-exclusives?

All non-exclusive vectors are now one credit.

« Reply #140 on: September 16, 2014, 10:36 »
0
in the new system are there any guidelines for how they determine how many credits a vector illustration is worth or is this still just up to the scouts? do you think they tend to lower credit worth of non-exclusives?


All non-exclusive vectors are now one credit.


Here is a non-exclusive with a 3 credit piece. confused?
http://www.istockphoto.com/vector/golf-easter-egg-row-36553560?st=0c802f2


« Reply #141 on: September 16, 2014, 10:47 »
+1
The increase in DLs seems to be making up for the lower cost of the larges. I mostly sold larges in the E+ and Vetta. My first sale yesterday was a Vetta large for 8.00 vs 28.00 for the same image last week. Today they are snatching the S+  up so it may even be a record day. Also seeing an old file that normally sells 2X a year sell 2X today is encouraging. I have a small port of specialty images. I wonder how the people with more sizable portfolios are doing. I am not buying into the complaint that they are too expensive. For those doing high volume small images there is the subscription plans. This is the best bargain in stock now and the word seems to be getting out.

« Reply #142 on: September 16, 2014, 14:13 »
+1
When Getty bought IS they tried to increase pricing for the industry. THEN Shutterstock saw an opportunity to undercut IS and did. As they gained traction and buyers flocked to SS for Walmart pricing, IS lost customers to SS's "screw the artist" business model.

Revisionist history or, if you prefer, just plain wrong.  Shutterstock was already established as a subscription site when I joined in early 2005.  Getty bought iStockphoto in 2006.  Subscriptions had been around for a few years before Getty started playing around with iStock's pricing.

True but SS could have worked with IS to raise pricing. But SS did not. Now SS owners are millionaires and the industry is forced to play on their terms.

Collusion perhaps but at least it was an attempt to get fairer pricing for our work.

Hopelessly wrong. Whatever you have dreamed up in your head has absolutely nothing to do with what actually happened.

SS were, until relatively recently, an entirely subscription-based model. They almost doubled their prices (and also royalties) between 2004-2008 because they had very little competition. It was only when DT and then FT also introduced subscriptions that the prices became 'fixed'. None of those agencies have dared to raise subscription prices significantly since for fear of losing market share to each other.

SS and IS were never really competing with each other in the early days. They had completely different business models and they operated in different market sectors. Neither were trying to 'undercut' each other because they weren't selling similar products.

If you want someone to blame for "screwing the artist" there are plenty to choose from. They pretty much all worked for Istock, Getty and H&F. Unfortunately, in their greed-driven attempts to screw the customers and the contributors as hard as they could ... they've ended up screwing themselves. Except H&F of course. Somehow they got out just in time with $B's of cash in their pockets.

« Reply #143 on: September 16, 2014, 14:53 »
+2
why not have launched this in a slower month, instead of ruining the only few good month(s) of the year?

Your right, and the same question been asked every year since I been on istock.  They always screw up my holiday sales with this BS.

« Reply #144 on: September 16, 2014, 15:26 »
-1
why not have launched this in a slower month, instead of ruining the only few good month(s) of the year?

Your right, and the same question been asked every year since I been on istock.  They always screw up my holiday sales with this BS.
What's screwed up?  Everything seems to be working smoothly to me.

« Reply #145 on: September 16, 2014, 15:32 »
+1
in the new system are there any guidelines for how they determine how many credits a vector illustration is worth or is this still just up to the scouts? do you think they tend to lower credit worth of non-exclusives?


All non-exclusive vectors are now one credit.


Here is a non-exclusive with a 3 credit piece. confused?
http://www.istockphoto.com/vector/golf-easter-egg-row-36553560?st=0c802f2


I'm guessing it's a former exclusive. If you sort by New (which isn't entirely) it appears that everything older than around June 27th this year is signature and the newer ones are Essentials, including two virtually identical items (one June 23 and the other June 27)

http://www.istockphoto.com/vector/soccer-or-football-fans-russia-42600398?st=4aaec6d
http://www.istockphoto.com/vector/soccer-fans-france-42847822?st=4aaec6d

If I were a buyer who wanted the 3 credit item above, I'd be pretty ticked at the inexplicable inconsistency

It appears they aren't able to move things around as exclusives leave exclusivity.

« Reply #146 on: September 16, 2014, 15:36 »
0
why not have launched this in a slower month, instead of ruining the only few good month(s) of the year?

Your right, and the same question been asked every year since I been on istock.  They always screw up my holiday sales with this BS.
What's screwed up?  Everything seems to be working smoothly to me.

Except sales.  The September bump is not there for me and others say same thing.  Buyers maybe don't like big price increase for credits or less buying power overnight.

I been there over 5 years and something always kills sales over holiday buying season.  This time at least no site problems tho.  Your right there.

wds

« Reply #147 on: September 16, 2014, 15:46 »
+1
The increase in DLs seems to be making up for the lower cost of the larges. I mostly sold larges in the E+ and Vetta. My first sale yesterday was a Vetta large for 8.00 vs 28.00 for the same image last week. Today they are snatching the S+  up so it may even be a record day. Also seeing an old file that normally sells 2X a year sell 2X today is encouraging. I have a small port of specialty images. I wonder how the people with more sizable portfolios are doing. I am not buying into the complaint that they are too expensive. For those doing high volume small images there is the subscription plans. This is the best bargain in stock now and the word seems to be getting out.

I have seen no bump in DLs. Of course it is only day 2.

dpimborough

« Reply #148 on: September 16, 2014, 16:52 »
+1
Being a none-exclusive I had four sales since the change and I'd say it's nice to get royalties that are over a $1 instead of the sub 30 cents I used to get for small and xtra small sales.

It's also good that the old camera I use only produces XL size images.  So I'm not seeing the reduced sales prices others have.

All in all it's sad that those submitting XXL and XXXL size images are seeing reductions.

If I were them I'd just submit XL and no larger.


« Reply #149 on: September 16, 2014, 17:12 »
+3

If I were them I'd just submit XL and no larger.

I applied that theory with Dreamstime in the early days - then they started selling a range of sizes and I found my stuff was locked into the lower part of the price range, so if you cut sizes to avoid them having XXL sizes you could find yourself losing out tomorrow/next week/month/year ... whenever they introduce the next marvellous new revamp to meet the demands of customers.

Come to think of it, the fact that they offer a range of sizes to download instead of just the largest could mean that they are already planning to adjust the pricing for different size files, once they get the punters to accept the new credit prices.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
35 Replies
8533 Views
Last post January 20, 2012, 15:55
by cathyslife
6 Replies
2809 Views
Last post August 06, 2012, 15:13
by red
4 Replies
2604 Views
Last post April 04, 2016, 14:01
by Anyka
6 Replies
4181 Views
Last post April 27, 2016, 09:42
by marthamarks
1 Replies
1655 Views
Last post February 12, 2017, 17:49
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle