MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Istock's back  (Read 26110 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mark Windom Photography

« Reply #75 on: September 14, 2014, 21:02 »
+6
ow budget buyers had it too easy since the advent of micro, these guys must go out of business.
they're the ones stealing potential customers from expensive design firms and keeping the prices unreasonably low.

Also keeping prices unreasonably low are photographers who continue to supply outlets that offer unreasonably low prices....I've been guilty of that myself and am taking steps to 'correct' that.


« Reply #76 on: September 14, 2014, 21:07 »
0
In fact, I'm a photographer. My road to (relatively) high RPD required several moves.
1. Never did I assume that buyers need low prices to purchase.
2. I worked my a** off to build my portfolio on IS starting in 2006, with a vary wide variety of quality imagery of real-life scenes.
3. I put as many images as I could in my E+ collection.
4. Created my files as large as I could to boost the odds of selling larger sizes.
5. Chose to never participate in Partner Program, because why feed the supply of images that will be sold cheaply? Just because it's not sold much doesn't mean it's not worth much.

An Exclusive contributor on IS at 35% royalty rate, selling Medium, E+ files on average, along with some Vettas and Extended licenses, will make what I do. If you have only very small files, or only files that are in the Main or Standard collections, you will make a lower RPD.

On the other hand, the number of sales I've seen has dwindled steadily since 2012. Much has to to do with the Best Match algorithm, adding new images (or not), and a host of other factors. I'm not saying we're in control of our sales numbers, only that we're in control (to some degree) of our RPD.

There is power in pricing, though there is also elasticity of demand.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #77 on: September 14, 2014, 21:15 »
+7
An Exclusive contributor on IS at 35% royalty rate, selling Medium, E+ files on average, along with some Vettas and Extended licenses, will make what I do. If you have only very small files, or only files that are in the Main or Standard collections, you will make a lower RPD.
Vetta and E+ are in the past; plus who expected them to knock the knees out from under us with compulsory subs, totally sinking RPD.

« Reply #78 on: September 14, 2014, 21:34 »
+1
Yes, they are in the past. But that's what my numbers played out to, and others in my shoes saw (as in past tense) them too. Actually the compulsory Subs didn't surprise me at all. I've been with Getty under other contracts for years and that's their model: they reserve the right to market your work at any price point they see fit as market conditions change. I just do what I can to maximize revenue under whatever contract I'm in.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #79 on: September 15, 2014, 01:32 »
-1
^@Bobobolinski: My personal belief is that your hope/strategy of lower prices for buyers is a very bad, very damaging approach, for you and the industry, although it can depend on to whom you are selling.
But-- we know that you are selling on a Getty owned-site, so we can assume the buyers are often corporate clients. They have money. Corporations have money. Little mom-and-pop designers, maybe not so much, but Getty sells to businesses with money. You should never assume that lower prices equals more money for you or a healthier marketplace.

All it does is teach buyers that quality and scarcity don't matter, and imagery is a commodity. Never, ever sell your work by competing on price. Creative works should never be marketed on price.

Come on, you work in Microstock and you are complaining about prices being lowered? That's how the entire microstock industry works, pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap.When IS have sales for a day or two, my sales shoot up, therefore I tend to believe that lower prices equal more money, because that is my experience. There is obviously a tipping point where prices can be too low but that is not the case at the moment.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2014, 02:22 by BoBoBolinski »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #80 on: September 15, 2014, 03:26 »
+9
Also keeping prices unreasonably low are photographers who continue to supply outlets that offer unreasonably low prices....I've been guilty of that myself and am taking steps to 'correct' that.

there will be soon a natural selection because while our fees are stalled or decreasing the cost of life keeps increasing, even and especially in third world countries, so in one way for another many niches it will become impossible to cover the production costs even if you live in Haiti or Bangladesh and your studio is in a bamboo hut.

there's never been less incentives to join a stock agency like today.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #81 on: September 15, 2014, 04:17 »
+3
surely from here on in we'll only see XL sales? why bother with sizing at all?  as a buyer of course i'd always choose the largest size possible. could any of us be bothered resizing images for iStock down to something a bit more modest, and keeping larger sizes on other sites?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2014, 02:13 by gillian »

« Reply #82 on: September 15, 2014, 08:43 »
+5
I was in traditional stock long before Microstock existed. And while I embraced Micro at it's rise, I also embraced price increases. Since the early 2000's, the market has evolved to settle at "Midstock" wherein prices are higher but affordable, and the predominant license is RF. (And where you can't buy anything worth using for $1 anymore.) Rights Managed can pay better, but sales are rare. The marketplace prefers a fast, (delivered online without negotiations) broad license. And I'm ok with Midstock. I'm ok with the pricing in the $30-$300 range, so long as my cut is at 35% or better. What I'm not ok with is my distributors deciding that they can only compete on price, and pushing customers to Subscriptions that pay me substantially less.

^@Bobobolinski: My personal belief is that your hope/strategy of lower prices for buyers is a very bad, very damaging approach, for you and the industry, although it can depend on to whom you are selling.
But-- we know that you are selling on a Getty owned-site, so we can assume the buyers are often corporate clients. They have money. Corporations have money. Little mom-and-pop designers, maybe not so much, but Getty sells to businesses with money. You should never assume that lower prices equals more money for you or a healthier marketplace.

All it does is teach buyers that quality and scarcity don't matter, and imagery is a commodity. Never, ever sell your work by competing on price. Creative works should never be marketed on price.

Come on, you work in Microstock and you are complaining about prices being lowered? That's how the entire microstock industry works, pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap.When IS have sales for a day or two, my sales shoot up, therefore I tend to believe that lower prices equal more money, because that is my experience. There is obviously a tipping point where prices can be too low but that is not the case at the moment.

« Reply #83 on: September 15, 2014, 09:33 »
+4
they're the ones stealing potential customers from expensive design firms and keeping the prices unreasonably low.

Churches, schools, students, small businesses, scouts, ad circulars, etc., were the backbone of the explosive growth in micro.  IS is leaving them behind and going for the same customer base as Getty.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #84 on: September 15, 2014, 09:53 »
0
Churches, schools, students, small businesses, scouts, ad circulars, etc., were the backbone of the explosive growth in micro.  IS is leaving them behind and going for the same customer base as Getty.

and then stock is not for them.
simple as that, and good riddance.

i feel no pity for this kind of "buyers", they all cry about having to pay 10$ for a photo and the next day they're happy wasting 5-600$ for the latest smartphone.

by the way, now that the explosive growth reached its apex, what's next apart new draconian cuts in our fees and even more devalueing of our work ?

it would be time to raise the bar for the agencies and kick out anyone with less than 5000 pics, doubling or tripling the prices, and delete a good 90% of the cr-ap in their archive that doesnt sell anyway.

and finally, we must ask ourselves, is this an industry worth our time and money ?
is there still people valueing our work or we're condemned to beg for 1$ downloads ?

as if there was any certainty that the downloads will keep coming ... things can change overnight in stock, usually for the worse.



« Reply #85 on: September 15, 2014, 09:54 »
+1
I don't understand leaving anyone behind especially when you don't have too! We don't have all the sales data but this move I am not sure about. I made in August $800.00 is cash sales which was almost 1/3 of my pitiful earnings last month on iStock, now they take away the ability to purchase that way? Why would you take that away? I see a huge hole in the market for point of sale for our work. I think you can just buy what you want at Stocksy. They just need to expand their gallery and ban they would own the stock world again.

« Reply #86 on: September 15, 2014, 10:00 »
+2
Just Check Stocksy check-out process is perfect! Prices in USD, you can use your credit card or paypal. Simple clean and fair pricing. I bet over time they will add Apple Pay as well.  Just Perfect and it's driving me nuts.

« Reply #87 on: September 15, 2014, 10:09 »
0
Contributors posting $.25 sales: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&page=47#post7046147

Ouch.  I hadn't even thought of that, but if you had 1 old credit worth $1.50, they would give you 5 new credits, each one worth $.30 (I'm guessing).  So, you could buy an "essentials" image for 1 new $.30 credit, and the contributor would get $.15 or so.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #88 on: September 15, 2014, 10:24 »
+2
Churches, schools, students, small businesses, scouts, ad circulars, etc., were the backbone of the explosive growth in micro.  IS is leaving them behind and going for the same customer base as Getty.
and then stock is not for them.
simple as that, and good riddance.
i feel no pity for this kind of "buyers", they all cry about having to pay 10$ for a photo and the next day they're happy wasting 5-600$ for the latest smartphone.
That's a total non-sequitur. In my time I've voluntarily edited a charity newsletter and a website for a local environmental cause (among others). The charity and the cause not having 10$ for each and every photo has no relevance whatsoever to my personal choice of phone.

« Reply #89 on: September 15, 2014, 10:28 »
0
Churches, schools, students, small businesses, scouts, ad circulars, etc., were the backbone of the explosive growth in micro.

That was a pre Facebook, pre iPhone, pre YouTube world. Once upon a time, when fast internet and digital cameras were new.

Little shops and church groups do not need vanity websites or blogs today. The social media is a much more effective way for them to communicate. And they can get the content they need shared and 'liked' via their 'friends'.

« Reply #90 on: September 15, 2014, 10:32 »
+6
Churches, schools, students, small businesses, scouts, ad circulars, etc., were the backbone of the explosive growth in micro.

That was a pre Facebook, pre iPhone, pre YouTube world. Once upon a time, when fast internet and digital cameras were new.

Little shops and church groups do not need vanity websites or blogs today. The social media is a much more effective way for them to communicate. And they can get the content they need shared and 'liked' via their 'friends'.

That's not at all the usage I'm talking about.  Churches use images during their services, in powerpoints, and in their flyers.  Small shops advertise in local circulars using images to catch eyes, and even on television sometime.  Students use images in presentations for classes and so do teachers.

« Reply #91 on: September 15, 2014, 10:35 »
+3
they're the ones stealing potential customers from expensive design firms and keeping the prices unreasonably low.

Churches, schools, students, small businesses, scouts, ad circulars, etc., were the backbone of the explosive growth in micro.  IS is leaving them behind and going for the same customer base as Getty.

Not just those. Also corprorate power point presentations, internal memos,flyers, smaller print scales for smaller evnts and workshops. That is a huge world that needs 5-10 files for a 2 hour presentation, but is not going to pay 15 dollars a piece for them. And then all the businesses in the growth countries, millions of them.

Looks like Getty is simply limiting istock to a very small market. And how much can they grow there? Or is taking away customers from getty the only growth plan?

« Reply #92 on: September 15, 2014, 10:41 »
+7
Small shops advertise in local circulars using images to catch eyes, and even on television sometime. 
And $8-45 is too much to pay to use an image in a television ad?  What percent of the project do you think that would be?  I bet it's not much.  I just don't see any companies saying "We would love to run this ad but if we have to spend $15 on an image it won't be profitable, now if we could get that image for $3 that would be a different story".

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #93 on: September 15, 2014, 10:56 »
+3
I don't know what they have done to their site but since then sales tanked. Off a cliff. Nothing for Monday.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2014, 11:02 by Herg »

Uncle Pete

« Reply #94 on: September 15, 2014, 11:31 »
+5
Yes to both, but falls on deaf ears. Stop supplying the parasites that only sell all the same images and only compete on price. That would roughly be anything below the top 15 on the right as a good starting point.

The lowball agencies that are packed with thousands of the identical images, which are fed by the people who are so desperate to make $10 a month (often less), are precisely the problem!

The artists are guilty of driving the value and prices down (thus our own returns) by supporting every tiny place that opens an agency and makes empty promises.  Stop feeding the parasites that bleed the value of our work.

ow budget buyers had it too easy since the advent of micro, these guys must go out of business.
they're the ones stealing potential customers from expensive design firms and keeping the prices unreasonably low.

Also keeping prices unreasonably low are photographers who continue to supply outlets that offer unreasonably low prices....I've been guilty of that myself and am taking steps to 'correct' that.

Valo

« Reply #95 on: September 15, 2014, 12:47 »
+3
buyers pretending to buy a 200px thumbnails are just cheap-as-s scroungers.

you need a small thumbnail for your project ? well, then you need a photo, and that photo comes 6000px wide, simple as that ... it shouldn't be my business if you need it small and don't have money for it ... i want a Ferrari too but i can't afford it ...

low budget buyers had it too easy since the advent of micro, these guys must go out of business.
they're the ones stealing potential customers from expensive design firms and keeping the prices unreasonably low.
But they don't want a Ferrari, they want the Fiat, which is now priced as a Ferrari.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #96 on: September 15, 2014, 13:36 »
+1
That's a total non-sequitur. In my time I've voluntarily edited a charity newsletter and a website for a local environmental cause (among others). The charity and the cause not having 10$ for each and every photo has no relevance whatsoever to my personal choice of phone.

ok, good, but charities have no rights to get things they can't afford, they had it easy with microstock so far but it ain't gonna last forever, no serious shooter will keep feeding the agencies if there's no return on investment and if cheap buyers have these needs it should not be our problem, there are billions of CC licenced images on Flickr alone ... newsletters and web sites can be made text-only as far as we're concerned, they can be a charity but we're not.

microstock and subs in particular are the very last step for the stock industry, there will be nothing after subs as they can't get any cheaper than that.


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #97 on: September 15, 2014, 13:41 »
-1
But they don't want a Ferrari, they want the Fiat, which is now priced as a Ferrari.

not my problem.

this world is full of monopolies and price fixing, the stock industry should do the same and raise the bar if it wants to survive.

photography has never been cheaper and never been easier to buy as today, there's absolutely nothing the buyers can complain and they should better shut the F up.

in many countries 10$ per hour is below the minimum wage and they're talking nonsense about credits and prices, it's all BS and shouldn't be even discussed among professionals, if they've no budget for even the cheapest micro photography they're just a failed business and they cease to be potential buyers as far as i'm concerned.

it's time to stop begging to these critters once and for all.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2014, 13:50 by Hobostocker »

« Reply #98 on: September 15, 2014, 14:05 »
+5
"We purchase images on iStock for illustrating online articles, so we don't need the high resolution images. We typically bought small versions at 2 to 6 old credits, so about $4 to $12 each. Under the new pricing structure they will now be $15 to $45 each. 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.  "

« Reply #99 on: September 15, 2014, 16:03 »
+13
Hobostock: On the previous site, you probably missed one fact. Agencies are not our employers, they are our business partners and without us, they are dead. So they better behave like in partnership and not corporate b*** trying to squeeze us more and more on each step. This is what got IS down and what made big trouble to Fotolia this year - its harder and harder to earn even that $10 a month with stock and technical requirements are well beyond amateurs. Only serious folks are in microstock now and they are fed up with screwing by agencies.

I think we are heading towards the change in whole stock photo industry. As you said, there is no lower price to go. IS made double kill with repelling XS buyers while screwing all XL/XXL and premium collection authors. We shall see in a few months, Im curious where this goes. I do not upload to IS since January 2012, their "improvements" were simply too much for me.


 

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
2603 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
1654 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