MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: BaldricksTrousers on September 13, 2014, 10:08
-
iStock's back online. The buyers' interface is certainly simpler, for what it's worth.
-
iStock's back online. The buyers' interface is certainly simpler, for what it's worth.
Wow, short downtime over a quiet time of the week and no big blips so far.
Interesting to see how it will pan out. I have no idea whether this will increase sales.
I have too many 'interesting times' going on at the moment!
-
Well! I've lost a bet there!!!!
:)
-
No speed improvement in the uploading process. Going back to using DeepMeta.
-
Quivering with excitement...
-
I imagine the next phase will be to change the amount we receive in our accounts from dollars to New Dollars. The amount in our accounts will look the same BUT payout will be at the rate of one standard dollar for every three New Dollars in the account. :-\
-
ive got just one question. maybe two.
Essential and Signature.
Essentials are normal non exclusive and signature are exclusives (or they are in GI too) ?
-
I,m than excited like a turtle!!
-
No speed improvement in the uploading process. Going back to using DeepMeta.
I see an admin actually told people to use DM.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7045081 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7045081)
Hmmm, if sales rise to a level I feel like uploading in reasonable numbers again, I'm not going to be happy if I have to use DM. >:(
-
I'm actually pleasantly surprised by the changes. Everything seems to be working smoothly, and I like the simpler search options for buyers, plus being able to choose what's popular this month, this year and for all time. I think that's a nice touch.
I'm hoping that helps (though so far their Facebook page had only a negative comment from a buyer about the rise in the price of credits). Fingers and toes crossed. I'd love to see my sales and earnings rise there.
-
ive got just one question. maybe two.
Essential and Signature.
Essentials are normal non exclusive and signature are exclusives (or they are in GI too) ?
Essentials are AFAIK all indie files, plus some exclusive files (low sellers).
Old S+ and Vetta are in Getty, moving on there's a behind-the-scenes 'S+' (not called that) for files to mirror in Getty.
-
plus being able to choose what's popular this month, this year and for all time. I think that's a nice touch.
That feature was added a while ago (I'm not sure how when, but I noticed it myself a few weeks ago).
-
And so it begins. My first image sold under the new system. Getting a sale on a Saturday is good (they all but stopped after subs were introduced), but getting 1/3 of what the file used to sell for is not. :'(
-
Still no decent detail on which channels our images are selling through in the new website. That's the one thing I was hoping for!
-
Still no decent detail on which channels our images are selling through in the new website. That's the one thing I was hoping for!
What do you mean?
-
And so it begins. My first image sold under the new system. Getting a sale on a Saturday is good (they all but stopped after subs were introduced), but getting 1/3 of what the file used to sell for is not. :'(
Vector artists are getting it hard. Indie photo $ per sale should go up I think.
-
iStock's back online. The buyers' interface is certainly simpler, for what it's worth.
It's still 'early doors'. They'll be plenty more outages and general f*8k-ups before an even less functioning version of 'stability' is declared a "success". That's the way it is with Istock.
Maybe this time they'll even have to strip out our identities as 'artists' to "reduce load on the servers". There's not much else they've got left. Everything else is already gone.
-
Thank you iStock!
a file that usually made me $4.50 to $4.90 just made me $1.50
Once again, you screwed us BIG
-
Yep same here 1.65$ xxxl :'(
-
hahaha.
if something ever changes, it's for the worse.
-
How does that compare for the last XS download that you got and how much will you get now?
Since there are no sizes, all your smaller uploads just went UP in value at the same time, and no one is going to admit that, right? This is not a surprise. It was in the announcement.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362718 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362718)
No More Pricing by File Size:
Customers will pay one price per file. They can then choose to download whichever file size best fits their project.
Your XXL today might have been a XS last week. There are in effect, no sizes anymore.
Example: Before - 11/01/2014 1:49 PM MST XSmall Regular $0.22 USD
Which would you rather have? 22 cents or $1.65?
Yep same here 1.65$ xxxl :'(
-
His XXL today might have been an XXL last week.
-
I know that a prostitute with a better make-up will have more customers, but can somebody explain me how a change of interface can/will raise the contributors earnings?
-
Indipendent video contributors are going to have a difficult time now. Clips will be priced a bit lower than SS and Pond5 while the royalties will be not significant. We are going to eat up ourselves having the same clips at a lower price with the perspective of 7 against 20 dollars earning. We are going to be obliged to deactivate our files in Istock if they don't rise royalties rate
-
From a buyers perspective the interface and functionality are a big improvement.
-
Double post
-
I know that a prostitute with a better make-up will have more customers, but can somebody explain me how a change of interface can/will raise the contributors earnings?
Well, as you say, maybe more customers. If you are talking about the whole restructuring then it will raise earnings for me (if the sales remain the same) because my average sale commission was less than the minimum commission under the new structure. It seems designers and exclusives will get their earnings cut. So it depends on the individual's circumstances.
-
How about exclusives? Should be pretty good stuff that I would buy 3x credits.
I think iStock will definitely drive more credit sales now, but does it compensate the $ earnings.
Next movement should be raising the contributor commissions to a decent level.
-
Might be worth noting that the iStock exclusive earnings rating on the right, which was more than 300 last year and about 150 last month is now down to 138.8 as of Sept 14. It will be interesting to see where it goes next month.
-
It's a little bit better now 8)
-
If 1 credit is €12,50 (how much US dollars is it?):
My files priced at 1 old credit will make more money now (made a sale that netted me $1.38 instead of the usual $0.37)
My files priced at 5 old credits will probably make the same amount, if the credit price won't go down too much, I think.
My files priced at 12 old credits will go down drastically.
My video's will go down drastically, they're now priced 6 new credits. The buyer pays 6 credits (€48,75 €54.25), so I'll be getting €7.31 €8.14(15%) which is roughly $9.50 $10.54 instead of $24.80...
Time to remove them.
-
Unless you usually sell a lot of xs images or 1-credit vectors, you're screwed. My second sale went the same way today....1/3 of what I used to get. I have a few 5-credit files, sales of which would pretty much break even, but the majority of my images were 12-22 credits, so my new earnings are not looking good at all. I'm predicting iStock will soon be neck and neck with Dreamstime for me.
-
They're really plugging subscriptions. Go to the plans and pricing page and credit sales are in a narrow grey headered column and sub sales are in a wide, red-headed column.
-
I know that a prostitute with a better make-up will have more customers, but can somebody explain me how a change of interface can/will raise the contributors earnings?
simplicity, if a task is simpler is also faster, and time is money
-
Thank you iStock!
a file that usually made me $4.50 to $4.90 just made me $1.50
Once again, you screwed us BIG
I don't get it.
If you don't like it, just pull out your portfolio, nobody is forcing you to contribute; it's a free market.
Edit: Yeah, downvote as much as you like, but that's the reality. Nobody owes you (us) anything. But we can shape the market because we have a choice. Stop being a victim. If you don't like it, do something instead of bitching.
-
Two sales of Large files since the change yesterday. Both would have paid me $22 before; each paid $7.35 this time. Looks like it's time to take a walk.
-
True but you don't know that! Someone needs to go through and see how many XS they had (for example) last month for 8c, 12c 24c or whatever piddly amount, then see how many XXLs they had for a larger number and then see if they are getting more or less, for the same images.
You can't assume that XXLs now would ever have been an XXL last week.
Second, IS is right that size doesn't matter. It could if the native size of an image was used for pricing, but if you have an 18MB file and someone DLs a XS or a XXL it's still the same image, isn't it? Just electronically altered.
What's the difference? It's not like paper, or on media. It's electrons. No added expense, no added value, and the person who buys the license can upscale or reduce, according to their needs. (meaning buy a smaller size for less and make it larger for the web)
Pricing by size is a flawed concept in digital downloads. (with the exception of native resolution and size, as mentioned above)
Tell me why someone should get 600% less, because the agency downsizes the identical image? Are you saying you like making less?
One size pricing is better balance, less confusing for everyone. Lets give it a chance before tossing it into the trash bin?
His XXL today might have been an XXL last week.
-
I'll try again and hope. How do you know that these would have been Large sales last week? It's not last week, it's now. How do you know that they wouldn't have been XS DLs last week, for much less?
See what I'm trying to get at. We don't know but people are assuming the worst. There's no way to know.
I think people need to calm down and watch for a month or more and see how DLs commissions are compared to their usual return for the same volume of sales. That needs to be against an average also, not August 2014 vs Nov 2014! :D
RPD for equal sales numbers over a longer period of time than one day.
We Don't Know Yet.
Two sales of Large files since the change yesterday. Both would have paid me $22 before; each paid $7.35 this time. Looks like it's time to take a walk.
-
The simple solution is to look at the number of ordinary iS sales you had last month and how much they made and then divide the earnings by the volume to find out what your average sale value is. In my case it was 80 or 90c.
Mind you, I have not yet had a single sale on the new system.
-
I'll try again and hope. How do you know that these would have been Large sales last week? It's not last week, it's now. How do you know that they wouldn't have been XS DLs last week, for much less?
See what I'm trying to get at. We don't know but people are assuming the worst. There's no way to know.
I think people need to calm down and watch for a month or more and see how DLs commissions are compared to their usual return for the same volume of sales. That needs to be against an average also, not August 2014 vs Nov 2014! :D
RPD for equal sales numbers over a longer period of time than one day.
We Don't Know Yet.
Two sales of Large files since the change yesterday. Both would have paid me $22 before; each paid $7.35 this time. Looks like it's time to take a walk.
My sales will have to instantly triple in volume just for me to reach the new low in earnings I've been getting since subs were introduced. I don't think that's likely; do you?
-
Thanks that's what I'm trying to say. We don't know yet, don't know volume or how it effects the average RPD. Although I don't really expect any change in how many sales I get, but I'm wondering how many of my XS will now be at a mid-point and higher.
The simple solution is to look at the number of ordinary iS sales you had last month and how much they made and then divide the earnings by the volume to find out what your average sale value is. In my case it was 80 or 90c.
Mind you, I have not yet had a single sale on the new system.
Sorry Shelma I don't understand what you are writing about subs and the One Price for all sizes?
For me subs have been dismal and TS hasn't been very productive. (but TS has managed to cut into IS sales in a big way and reduce my income) I'm getting a cut for the S files re-badged and my Getty Exclusive will get some kind of a cut as well. But I'm willing to wait and see the numbers for the one size plan and see if it's better or worse.
My sales will have to instantly triple in volume just for me to reach the new low in earnings I've been getting since subs were introduced. I don't think that's likely; do you?
If the point is, does anyone like subs or TS, my answer is NO! >:(
-
I made a sale this morning, which falls under the new guidelines. (non-exclusive) How do I find out how much I got for that sale? If I look at the financial section, it shows what that file has earned over it's lifetime, but I can't figure out how much it earned today. For instance, what if it sold with an extended license?
-
Uncle Pete, I don't need any more data. My average RPD was north of $12 before the Total Makeover. Now it clearly will be around $7, because sales of files larger than "Large" are rare. Hardly anyone needs an XL or XXL file. The "average" file size (extracted from RPD) WAS was a Medium. And Medium is large enough for most print applications to say nothing of the web, where Smalls and XS files rule. Sizes needed won't change.
I'll say that again. Sizes needed won't change.
Now-- Sizes downloaded MIGHT change, because you can get more for less now. But in the last 24 hours it has been proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my income will drop by 65% for larger images, and about 40% on average. And those are ugly statistics.
-
I made a sale this morning, which falls under the new guidelines. (non-exclusive) How do I find out how much I got for that sale? If I look at the financial section, it shows what that file has earned over it's lifetime, but I can't figure out how much it earned today. For instance, what if it sold with an extended license?
If you look at your most recent downloads and click on the amount the file has earned, a chart will appear showing each download and how much you earned from each.
-
Thank you iStock!
a file that usually made me $4.50 to $4.90 just made me $1.50
Once again, you screwed us BIG
I don't get it.
If you don't like it, just pull out your portfolio, nobody is forcing you to contribute; it's a free market.
Edit: Yeah, downvote as much as you like, but that's the reality. Nobody owes you (us) anything. But we can shape the market because we have a choice. Stop being a victim. If you don't like it, do something instead of bitching.
It's not that hard of a concept to grasp. One week you are making a certain level of income. The source controlling that income says starting next week I will be paying you less, much less, for the same effort and content. No supplier would be happy with that and many will pull their portfolio. But those relying on the income may need to keep the meager portion for awhile while they implement plan B and they are not likely to keep quiet in the interim.
It's not unlike supplying Walmart. High volume for the supplier offsets tight margins but when they start squeezing you for more it becomes unsustainable for the supplier yet to walk away creates it's own set of financial issues.
-
Got it... based on past average returns and Max. potential for the same volume, it will be down. And I'd agree with that assessment since you know best what your long term RPD history is. Some people it could be an increase. (like me with more small DLs than XXLs) Anyone like yourself, it won't.
Also NO, I have no expectations of increased volume to make up for this. Which would be the way it could balance.
Many people just got a cut, some got a raise. But for someone to say "I just got an XXL that could have earned ### last week", is flawed logic. It also could have been an XS and earned much less. That's where I started but seem to be talking to a brick wall.
Uncle Pete, I don't need any more data. My average RPD was north of $12 before the Total Makeover. Now it clearly will be around $7, because sales of files larger than "Large" are rare. Hardly anyone needs an XL or XXL file. The "average" file size (extracted from RPD) WAS was a Medium. And Medium is large enough for most print applications to say nothing of the web, where Smalls and XS files rule. Sizes needed won't change.
I'll say that again. Sizes needed won't change.
Now-- Sizes downloaded MIGHT change, because you can get more for less now. But in the last 24 hours it has been proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my income will drop by 65% for larger images, and about 40% on average. And those are ugly statistics.
-
FI, iS hadn't sold XS files for a while before the change, the smallest for months was S.
What will happen is that iS will probably lose sales from small-time bloggers, but that's so obvious, they'd hopefully have factored that into the decision of the current change. Maybe there aren't all that many of these.
Probably buyers who typically use images in small sizes, e.g. in newsletters or small format magazines might also start looking elsewhere. Again, maybe there aren't many of these.
OTOH, why exclude some potential buyers?
Plaaying Devil's Advocate, on one side, why should a blogger wanting a small image pay as much as a company wanting to use an image on hoardings or full page in a glossy magazine. On the other side, an image might be on a hoarding or magazine for a week or month, but on a website for years (or just a day).
For myself, as I had almost no Vettas and relatively very few S+, I could stand to gain a bit from this new arrangement - if there are more sales.
People with a lot of Vettas and S+ stand to lose quite substantially from iS alone, especially as they are pushing subs so strongly.
All anyone can do is suck it and see - or leave.
-
Well I'm seeing some reasonable sales for a Sunday so I'm quite happy at the moment. (better just stress that last bit)
I'm not bothered what individual files earn, in fact I've long hoped for a lowering of prices, all that matters is what I have at the end of the week.
-
We have to give this a few months to see the real impact of these changes. The changes are quite significant, not just a simple price change. There will most likely be short term (major changes in pricing impacting current customer purchases) and long term (market share) impacts. We have to give it time.
-
according to the poll results here to our right,
IS exclusive 138.8 vs SS 91.7 (and sinking)
does it mean that IS is doing much better than SS???
if so, IS is still not doing badly. just wondering. perharps exclusives can tune us in on that.
(thx in advance)
-
according to the poll results here to our right,
IS exclusive 138.8 vs SS 91.7 (and sinking)
does it mean that IS is doing much better than SS???
if so, IS is still not doing badly. just wondering. perharps exclusives can tune us in on that.
(thx in advance)
what subjects do u shoot? thanks
-
As has been pointed out earlier (in this thread? maybe another, but within the last 24 hrs) iS's exclusive rating on the poll has fallen off a lot.
Reading iS's July and August threads shows most people with rapidly falling dls and $$, other than newbies and a tiny handful of oldies - a continuation of a trend since they introduced subs in April.
OTOH, we don't know if/how many people were maintaining or increasing sales, or just having a 'summer slump' rather than the major crash, because they might keep quiet for fear of copy-cats.
-
^@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.
-
according to the poll results here to our right,
IS exclusive 138.8 vs SS 91.7 (and sinking)
does it mean that IS is doing much better than SS???
if so, IS is still not doing badly. just wondering. perharps exclusives can tune us in on that.
(thx in advance)
Remember, iS exclusives are just that. They only sell on iS. So they would have no way to compare against SS. And of course, SS'rs can also sell on other sites.
-
^@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.
Then again, wasn't microstock built on exactly this paradigm.
-
As has been pointed out earlier (in this thread? maybe another, but within the last 24 hrs) iS's exclusive rating on the poll has fallen off a lot.
Reading iS's July and August threads shows most people with rapidly falling dls and $$, other than newbies and a tiny handful of oldies - a continuation of a trend since they introduced subs in April.
OTOH, we don't know if/how many people were maintaining or increasing sales, or just having a 'summer slump' rather than the major crash, because they might keep quiet for fear of copy-cats.
thx Sue,
yes, i think that was my first impression.
u don't come in to the forums to complain when u have good earnings.
regarding ur opening statement, even that with quote (rapidly falling earnings), IS exclusive numbers here still surpass SS.
maybe we r not getting all the story of how bad good IS is , for many some
ie. scare them away ;)
-
according to the poll results here to our right,
IS exclusive 138.8 vs SS 91.7 (and sinking)
does it mean that IS is doing much better than SS???
if so, IS is still not doing badly. just wondering. perharps exclusives can tune us in on that.
(thx in advance)
IS has a much larger turnover than SS - or it always did and I assume it still does. From the point of view of SS that means there is a lot of market share to be fought for. From the point of view of IS it means it is still the market leader. From the point of view of exclusive contributors the situation has deteriorated rapidly, not long ago the exclusive rating suggested that exclusivity generated more for contributors than independence ever could, now you only have to submit to the top four to do better on average than you could on iStock .... if the stats can really be interpreted in that way, which may be dubious.
-
Buyer comments:
From the forum: "We use photos with low dimensions, specifically for online use. But now with new pricing system, the price of 1 photo is: 3 credits x $15 = $45 (before 3$-$5)... !?"
From my blog: "The latest change has made me leave iStockPhoto for other alternatives, because mostly, I only need XS and S sizes. It just isn't worthwhile to pay $8 or $24 for one picture that I only need 200 pixels wide. Personally, I think charging the same price for a 600 pixel wide image as a 6000 pixel wide image is crazy."
From twitter: "*Improved* @iStock photo prices raise my monthly a la carte stock photo costs from $54.90 to approx. $300. Loyal customer since 2006 = Done"
-
Uncle Pete, I don't need any more data. My average RPD was north of $12 before the Total Makeover. Now it clearly will be around $7, because sales of files larger than "Large" are rare. Hardly anyone needs an XL or XXL file. The "average" file size (extracted from RPD) WAS was a Medium. And Medium is large enough for most print applications to say nothing of the web, where Smalls and XS files rule. Sizes needed won't change.
I'll say that again. Sizes needed won't change.
Now-- Sizes downloaded MIGHT change, because you can get more for less now. But in the last 24 hours it has been proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my income will drop by 65% for larger images, and about 40% on average. And those are ugly statistics.
I got $1.65 XXL last month. cidepix says he gets $4.50 to $4.90 before, you average $12 RPD making 3x what he does and 6x what I do. How come? I am ind minimum RC. Please explain your average $12 for standard download, why so high?
-
I think he's an illustratir
-
If I want to buy just one image on SS what dose that cost for an XL? Next why is business making purchasing so difficult? I like to use paypal like on pond5 I hate credits so I am seeing room in the market for a much better purchasing experience. iStock needs to learn "Make it work for the customer not just yourself!"
-
Uncle Pete, I don't need any more data. My average RPD was north of $12 before the Total Makeover. Now it clearly will be around $7, because sales of files larger than "Large" are rare. Hardly anyone needs an XL or XXL file. The "average" file size (extracted from RPD) WAS was a Medium. And Medium is large enough for most print applications to say nothing of the web, where Smalls and XS files rule. Sizes needed won't change.
I'll say that again. Sizes needed won't change.
Now-- Sizes downloaded MIGHT change, because you can get more for less now. But in the last 24 hours it has been proven to me beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my income will drop by 65% for larger images, and about 40% on average. And those are ugly statistics.
I got $1.65 XXL last month. cidepix says he gets $4.50 to $4.90 before, you average $12 RPD making 3x what he does and 6x what I do. How come? I am ind minimum RC. Please explain your average $12 for standard download, why so high?
Here's mine for one photo:
XXXLarge Regular $1.61 USD
Medium Regular $0.45 USD
Medium Regular $1.54 USD
XSmall Regular $0.21 USD
XXXLarge Regular $7.00 USD
Large Regular $3.36 USD
I think the point is, more people will make less and some will make more. As a base level Indy I'll make more. 8)
Long time exclusives of the top levels will make less.
I can't know what will happen in the middle for certain.
And I'll repeat, I don't think Subs or TS are the way to go. My IS returns still don't equal what I was making on IS before they opened TS. My RPD is 1/3rd of those years before TS. Subs have done little or nothing for my income.
Of course it could be my material as well, but I'm not jumping with joy about the newest change and programs. Just trying to point out both sides of it and be fair.
-
Thank you iStock!
a file that usually made me $4.50 to $4.90 just made me $1.50
Once again, you screwed us BIG
I don't get it.
If you don't like it, just pull out your portfolio, nobody is forcing you to contribute; it's a free market.
Edit: Yeah, downvote as much as you like, but that's the reality. Nobody owes you (us) anything. But we can shape the market because we have a choice. Stop being a victim. If you don't like it, do something instead of bitching.
It's not that hard of a concept to grasp. One week you are making a certain level of income. The source controlling that income says starting next week I will be paying you less, much less, for the same effort and content. No supplier would be happy with that and many will pull their portfolio. But those relying on the income may need to keep the meager portion for awhile while they implement plan B and they are not likely to keep quiet in the interim.
It's not unlike supplying Walmart. High volume for the supplier offsets tight margins but when they start squeezing you for more it becomes unsustainable for the supplier yet to walk away creates it's own set of financial issues.
Well if you rely solely on iStock for income (especially in the last two years), then I can't say that I empathize that someone's surprised with this course of action.
iStock is between 10 and 15 percent of my monthly income. And I'm glad. :)
This bitching is like going to the supermarket, finding out that a liter of milk costs 5 euro, and then shouting "you screwed us BIG, mr. supermarket!".
You can just walk out of the store, never come back again, buy milk elsewhere and let the economy and the free market do the rest.
Nobody owes you anything. If they want, they can change the royalty rate to 2%. It's just a matter of supply and demand, and when there's enough (quality) supply, why would they lower their profits by paying contributors more? Because it's FAIR? Lol. Any CEO that would have that gameplan would actually never become a CEO because that's not how it works.
It's like people here actually think that these companies care about us, the contributors. That's pretty naive.
The best is to diversify, and when an agency doesn't comply with your standard for whatever reason, just leave. Bitching about some company screwing you is kinda childish.
-
This bitching is like going to the supermarket, finding out that a liter of milk costs 5 euro, and then shouting "you screwed us BIG, mr. supermarket!".
You can just walk out of the store, never come back again, buy milk elsewhere and let the economy and the free market do the rest.
No. That's not the same thing. In your example the consumer has not invested anything (time, effort) to the supermarket -> Not the same thing at all.
Here is a better milk-analogy: Mr. Supermarket promises the milk producer 50 cents per liter. Milk producer thinks this is a fair deal, and buys more cows. Suddenly Mr. Supermarket says the producer can only get 20 cents per liter. And according to you, he shouldn't be mad or dissappointed.
-
This bitching is like going to the supermarket, finding out that a liter of milk costs 5 euro, and then shouting "you screwed us BIG, mr. supermarket!".
You can just walk out of the store, never come back again, buy milk elsewhere and let the economy and the free market do the rest.
No. That's not the same thing. In your example the consumer has not invested anything (time, effort) to the supermarket -> Not the same thing at all.
Here is a better milk-analogy: Mr. Supermarket promises the milk producer 50 cents per liter. Milk producer thinks this is a fair deal, and buys more cows. Suddenly Mr. Supermarket says the producer can only get 20 cents per liter. And according to you, he shouldn't be mad or dissappointed.
Well, I haven't invested anything in iStock, so the analogy stands (for me, at least).
My portfolio is made for agencies which bring me the majority of the income, and I can choose to contribute to iStock or not. It's not like I'm making anything BECAUSE of them. So yeah.
Your analogy isn't full because there are other supermarkets who will buy your milk. So you can essentially say "if you don't want my milk at the prices that I consider fair, I will sell it to someone else, who will pay me more (fairly)". But to be mad? I still don't get it.
-
Well, I haven't invested anything in iStock, so the analogy stands (for me, at least).
You haven't uploaded your images there?
-
Well, I haven't invested anything in iStock, so the analogy stands (for me, at least).
You haven't uploaded your images there?
I have, but why do you consider that as investment?
I haven't created anything BECAUSE they exist, and that was the implication from your analogy (Here is a better milk-analogy: Mr. Supermarket promises the milk producer 50 cents per liter. Milk producer thinks this is a fair deal, and buys more cows.)
-
You haven't uploaded your images there?
I have, but why do you consider that as investment?
Of course the time and effort put in uploading is an investment! Especially with their PITA uploading/keywording system.
-
The simple solution is to look at the number of ordinary iS sales you had last month and how much they made and then divide the earnings by the volume to find out what your average sale value is. In my case it was 80 or 90c.
Mind you, I have not yet had a single sale on the new system.
Yes. I averaged .81 and. 87 on IS last couple months. I should see a raise there if volume don't go down. This is not because they care for the happiness of indie photogs, but because we got worst shafting under old system.
-
Yes. I averaged .81 and. 87 on IS last couple months. I should see a raise there if volume don't go down. This is not because they care for the happiness of indie photogs, but because we got worst shafting under old system.
They have an option box in the left hand column under the heading subscription for Essentials and Signature. In line with the subs, Essentials shows only Essential files, and Signature shows both, as they have a sub which covers all files.
Of course, anyone can use these tickboxes, whether or not they have a sub, with the effect that a buyer can choose not to see essentials, but can't choose to see only undemoted exclusive files (if they would want to).
Great work, iS.
-
It just isn't worthwhile to pay $8 or $24 for one picture that I only need 200 pixels wide. Personally, I think charging the same price for a 600 pixel wide image as a 6000 pixel wide image is crazy."
but on the other side if his product isn't even worth 10 bucks of production costs maybe he's got no rights to stay in business.
how much is he paying for the fonts, for the text, for the copywriting, for the layout ?
there's billions of free RF images around for those on a tight budget, have fun !
-
Never, ever sell your work by competing on price. Creative works should never be marketed on price.
this is your personal opinion but the market says otherwise, there's a place for RM and a place for RF and subs, to each his own and if you're selling your best images as cheap subs you can only blame yourself.
by the way, find me an industry where creatives are treated and paid fairly ...
moreover, in stock what matters is the size of your portfolio and your distribution, anything else comes later.
unless you're famous or unless you're shooting a unique niche there's no way to leverage your price and in that case you're better off selling on your own.
if the customers think your image is not worth more than 10$ who are we to judge ? there's such an abundance of good images today for free or for 5-10 bucks, there are so many good photographers around, most of them actually amateurs who are not in for the money and are doing it for fun or exposure.
it's only creatives who keep ranting all day about being a creative, anyone else don't give a sh-it and rightly so.
-
why is business making purchasing so difficult? iStock needs to learn "Make it work for the customer not just yourself!"
it's called "maximizing profits", marketing 101.
by the way, credits are one of the oldest tricks to "lock in" a customer and making him think in terms of credits instead of real dollars, same as in gambling, videogames, and much more.
it's not difficult to buy a stock image, actually it's never been easier especially if you compare with 20 yrs ago !
-
Personally, I think charging the same price for a 600 pixel wide image as a 6000 pixel wide image is crazy."
From twitter: "*Improved* @iStock photo prices raise my monthly a la carte stock photo costs from $54.90 to approx. $300. Loyal customer since 2006 = Done"
yeah but for us it costs the same to produce a 6000px or a 600px image.
for anything else, wait for the other agencies to follow suit and remove different pricings based on size.
and talking about size, the market is already selling 4K TV sets with 4000px resolution, many laptops have already come with a 1920px display, smartphones are already running on screens larger than 1280px, a photo large 6000px is absolutely no big deal, even google images is showing resized thumbs as large as 3-400px.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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: 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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Contributors posting $.25 sales: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&page=47#post7046147 (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 $.15 or so.
-
Churches, schools, students, small businesses, scouts, ad circulars, etc., were the backbone of the explosive growth in micro. IS is leaving them behind and going for the same customer base as Getty.
and then stock is not for them.
simple as that, and good riddance.
i feel no pity for this kind of "buyers", they all cry about having to pay 10$ 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.
-
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'.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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".
-
I don't know what they have done to their site but since then sales tanked. Off a cliff. Nothing for Monday.
-
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 $10 a month (often less), are precisely the problem!
The artists are guilty of driving the value and prices down (thus our own returns) by supporting every tiny place that opens an agency and makes empty promises. Stop feeding the parasites that bleed the value of our work.
ow budget buyers had it too easy since the advent of micro, these guys must go out of business.
they're the ones stealing potential customers from expensive design firms and keeping the prices unreasonably low.
Also keeping prices unreasonably low are photographers who continue to supply outlets that offer unreasonably low prices....I've been guilty of that myself and am taking steps to 'correct' that.
-
buyers pretending to buy a 200px thumbnails are just cheap-as-s scroungers.
you need a small thumbnail for your project ? well, then you need a photo, and that photo comes 6000px wide, simple as that ... it shouldn't be my business if you need it small and don't have money for it ... i want a Ferrari too but i can't afford it ...
low budget buyers had it too easy since the advent of micro, these guys must go out of business.
they're the ones stealing potential customers from expensive design firms and keeping the prices unreasonably low.
But they don't want a Ferrari, they want the Fiat, which is now priced as a Ferrari.
-
That's a total non-sequitur. In my time I've voluntarily edited a charity newsletter and a website for a local environmental cause (among others). The charity and the cause not having 10$ 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.
-
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.
-
"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. "
-
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.
-
Why is it so hard for istock to list images like Stocksy?
1. Make 4 sizes
2. Mark in USD the actual price
3. Pay artist Non-Exclusive 20% and Exclusive 40%
4. Now use valuable curation for buyers!
This system should apply for all media! iStock is the only company that can truly piss off buyers and artist all at the same time!
-
Well, it's the first regular business day and I'm watching XXXL sales that I used to get around $16-$35 now getting $6-$9.
I know the plan is that some of those buyers would have bought Small size and by default now download XXXL and things are supposed to even themselves out. But I wonder how many new XXXL buyers this will attract for the huge discount vs how many small buyers will go elsewhere.
I'm thinking it's time to start moving my higher value stuff out of micro. E+ and macro have shown me that certain pics have no problem getting higher prices. I now have a bunch of higher value pics being offered at a fraction of what they've proven to sell at.
I'll stick it out for a bit but I don't see a volume increase offsetting the price drop.
-
and technical requirements are well beyond amateurs. Only serious folks are in microstock now and they are fed up with screwing by agencies.
ummm, how? there are several topics that istock now takes anything, even badly exposed and blurred files. and istock is not the only one (they have a dedicated topic because once upon a time they had the toughest criteria).
-
and technical requirements are well beyond amateurs. Only serious folks are in microstock now and they are fed up with screwing by agencies.
ummm, how? there are several topics that istock now takes anything, even badly exposed and blurred files. and istock is not the only one (they have a dedicated topic because once upon a time they had the toughest criteria).
You snipped too tightly, basti was talking about Fotolia in that sentence, "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."
iS, as you say, takes almost everything.
-
and technical requirements are well beyond amateurs. Only serious folks are in microstock now and they are fed up with screwing by agencies.
ummm, how? there are several topics that istock now takes anything, even badly exposed and blurred files. and istock is not the only one (they have a dedicated topic because once upon a time they had the toughest criteria).
You snipped too tightly, basti was talking about Fotolia in that sentence, "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."
iS, as you say, takes almost everything.
oh, i see now, my bad.
i should probably try to push some "technically imperfect" files to fotolia and see.
but, in the end, if too much serious contributors quit, all agencies will either drop the criteria and have a steady influx of new material or people from developing countries where such income is quite lucrative will take over.
but it actually depends on the buyers. if they want higher quality, the stock agencies will have to raise our royalty. if they, on the other hand, just continue buying stuff, disregarding the lower quality, nothing will change.
-
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.
i would guess those folks steal images off google images thinking they are all free
-
Why would you think that?
-
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.
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.
Shutterstock's subscription offer is the cause of photographers making less money and for IS's recent changes. If you don't like what is going on at iStock -- blame Shutterstock
-
Why would you think that?
Just gut feeling and saw some statistic somewhere. I hear too many people say, "oh, I just got this photo off of the internet".
-
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.
-
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.
I agree but there's one problem....few agencies truly consider it a business partnership....it's a very one-sided arrangement as far as they are concerned. You want to leave? They could care less as there are many more 'photogs' waiting to take your place.....and because of that those agencies will continue to exist as there is no way in h*ll there would ever be an agreement among enough contributors to leave an agency to the point where it would be dealt a death blow.
I'm down to two agencies, both of which do consider my relationship with them a partnership; who charge a fair price for the images and pay out a fair commission to the contributor (I'm still with SS but am slowly, and steadily, withdrawing my content from there; no more subs for me). I'm sure there are other agencies out there that fall into this 'good partnership' category but I'm done looking around.
-
Why would you think that?
Just gut feeling and saw some statistic somewhere. I hear too many people say, "oh, I just got this photo off of the internet".
Obviously not all of them do. I mean, I had a million downloads that sort of showed that.
-
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.
-
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.
SS raised subscription prices and royalties several times. Granted, the last time was in 2008, before the financial meltdown. After that they just created more download products that produced more revenue for themselves and for us. They were just a lot more careful about it, not wanting to push customers away with too aggressive pricing or too many complicated offerings. iStock went for aggressive and complicated, and look what it's done for them.
And there's no perhaps about collusion. It's illegal, and would have been a bad move on Shutterstock's part even if it wasn't. iStock/Getty has a long history of abusing its partners and suppliers. Last thing I want is for another agency to get into bed with them.
-
Getty could have taken a different approach and gone after a really splendid collection, accentuating the Exclusive aspect. That's how you get away with charging more. But they didn't. They decided bigger was better and took a bazillion images from every Tom, Dick and Harry. Shutterstock went after the garden variety subjects, done exceptionally well, and iStock, I suspect, started losing sales. In 30+ years of shooting stock I've come to the conclusion that you can charge a premium for unique imagery or great service, but you cannot charge a premium if your images are me-too. You have to be different in some way, and you can't raise prices forever.
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.
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.
Shutterstock's subscription offer is the cause of photographers making less money and for IS's recent changes. If you don't like what is going on at iStock -- blame Shutterstock
-
Why is it so hard for istock to list images like Stocksy?
1. Make 4 sizes
2. Mark in USD the actual price
3. Pay artist Non-Exclusive 20% and Exclusive 40%
4. Now use valuable curation for buyers!
This system should apply for all media! iStock is the only company that can truly piss off buyers and artist all at the same time!
make #3 30% or more and whatever for exclusives or I won't go back.
-
Agree Except
1. three sizes, Small Web, useful Medium and full resolution Large
2.*
3. Yes but 30% and 50%? :)
4.*
5. Make the search work by removing bad and inappropriate keywords. The buyers would LOVE it!
People will pay a fair price, for a good image, that's properly cataloged. Talk about closing the door after the horses have all escaped. Keywords are a tragic disaster area and when there were less images, agencies could have corralled them. Now with Millions of images, it's just out of control.
Good accurate keywords goes hand in hand with curated.
Why is it so hard for istock to list images like Stocksy?
1. Make 4 sizes
2. Mark in USD the actual price
3. Pay artist Non-Exclusive 20% and Exclusive 40%
4. Now use valuable curation for buyers!
This system should apply for all media! iStock is the only company that can truly piss off buyers and artist all at the same time!
-
I still think that a site could make their keywords look a lot cleaner by starting with the most popular searches (if the sites can't figure this out they have bigger problems) and go through the first 5 or so pages of results and hammer any spammed images that end up there - or even hammer the whole ports that those images came from - there are now plenty of images so for most popular searches it would just hide the spam and encourage better keywording.
-
why not have launched this in a slower month, instead of ruining the only few good month(s) of the year?
-
why not have launched this in a slower month, instead of ruining the only few good month(s) of the year?
They have a long history of September mayhem. Last year wasn't too bad, though.
-
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.
-
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.
action vs reaction ....
the more they scre-w us the more people will stop uploading as there's no decent return on investment, of course it will take some time for the agencies to notice.
and yes, at this point they played already all their cards, it can't get any lower and cheaper than subs.
so what's next ?
even the wire agencies doing news are selling with monthly subs (AP/AFP/Reuters) and guess what, news photographers are paid a pittance and nothing is going to change, even the top war photographers are having it rough and find it difficult to sell their photos after risking their neck, lots of photographers died recently in Ukraine and nobody gives a sh-it, they're considered dime a dozen or "they were asking for it" ...
what we're witnessing now is global devalueing of photography on every front, not just in stock.
because of the internet an entire world of suppliers selling digital products is just one click away and accepting credit cards for payments, nothing will ever be the same.
once the party will be over for stockers the survivals will switch to assignments, gigs, events, weddings .. whatever photo job where they deal face to face with the customer and where they're paid well.
-
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.
-
once the party will be over for stockers the survivals will switch to assignments, gigs, events, weddings .. whatever photo job where they deal face to face with the customer and where they're paid well.
Thats already happening and has been for a while. I think there are a very small percentage of stock shooters with stock as their only income. Stock has become supplemental income and is probably becoming a less significant part of people's earnings. Up until a couple years ago stock was my only photography income. Now it's less than 50%.
-
once the party will be over for stockers the survivals will switch to assignments, gigs, events, weddings .. whatever photo job where they deal face to face with the customer and where they're paid well.
Agencies are in denial about an endless supply of high production images, pro shooters will move on out of necessity. I'm already finding my client work is far outstripping my stock work which was the opposite only 2 years ago.
All they'll be left with is the endless hobbyists shooting their backyard, cheap objects on white, goofy looking relatives with terrible locations and props.
Agencies are out of their mind if they think I'm spending another $20,000+ I previously spent building my port. The return is not guaranteed like it used to be, these days it could take 3 to 4 years to pay for the time and expense just to break even, far too risky while every agency is busy slitting each others throat on price.
The SS subs model has succeeded in pulling in large amounts of quality work and it's rapidly becoming economically impossible to produce any further work to keep the library fresh. They have already become a victim of their own success, they just don't realise it yet as everyone is still dumping every image they've ever taken into the libraries (me included).
It will take the agencies a few more years to fully experience the long term damage that's going on right now.
I left iS exclusivity to weather the storm, what I didn't realise in hindsight is that dilution and ultra low prices were the nub of the problem, unfortunately for many of us is there's no real shelter from it in todays climate.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 istock´s management really believe they could hide a 300% increase in price and nobody would notice?
Fotolia´s 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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'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)
-
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.
-
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?
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/vector/golf-easter-egg-row-36553560?st=0c802f2)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/vector/golf-easter-egg-row-36553560?st=0c802f2[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/vector/golf-easter-egg-row-36553560?st=0c802f2[/url])
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-or-football-fans-russia-42600398?st=4aaec6d)
http://www.istockphoto.com/vector/soccer-fans-france-42847822?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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Spot on! You can't make any predictions of where they might jump next. >:(
-
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.
i know but customer demand cannot meet supply if the prices they're willing to pay are too low.
even the actual prices are already too low in my opinion, agencies are making profits just because they undercut photographers.
-
once the party will be over for stockers the survivals will switch to assignments, gigs, events, weddings .. whatever photo job where they deal face to face with the customer and where they're paid well.
Agencies are in denial about an endless supply of high production images, pro shooters will move on out of necessity. I'm already finding my client work is far outstripping my stock work which was the opposite only 2 years ago.
All they'll be left with is the endless hobbyists shooting their backyard, cheap objects on white, goofy looking relatives with terrible locations and props.
Agencies are out of their mind if they think I'm spending another $20,000+ I previously spent building my port. The return is not guaranteed like it used to be, these days it could take 3 to 4 years to pay for the time and expense just to break even, far too risky while every agency is busy slitting each others throat on price.
The SS subs model has succeeded in pulling in large amounts of quality work and it's rapidly becoming economically impossible to produce any further work to keep the library fresh. They have already become a victim of their own success, they just don't realise it yet as everyone is still dumping every image they've ever taken into the libraries (me included).
It will take the agencies a few more years to fully experience the long term damage that's going on right now.
I left iS exclusivity to weather the storm, what I didn't realise in hindsight is that dilution and ultra low prices were the nub of the problem, unfortunately for many of us is there's no real shelter from it in todays climate.
well, pro shooters like Yuri already left the building and he's certainly not the only one.
yes, the more they lower the bar the more they'll be left with random hobbyists, but they will soon realize there's no point to work so hard if there's no ROI.
if i was an amateur i would just stick to Flickr or 500px or similar sites, what's the point of having a small micro portfolio ? nowadays you need 1000s of images just to see some results.
but yeah, it will take a few years for the agencies to realize it, this is unavoidable as long as the sales are steady and there's no sudden drop in revenue.
agency use the logic "if it ain't broken don't fix it".
-
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.
i know but customer demand cannot meet supply if the prices they're willing to pay are too low.
Demand doesn't meet supply, supply meets demand. So if iStock wants to price itself out of the market another supplier will be there to pick up the disaffected customers.
You also seem to assume that the "cheap" buyer only ever wants one photo and shouldn't be in business if he or she can't afford $15. What about the project that needs 20 images? $300 is a little bit more than pocket-money.
-
once the party will be over for stockers the survivals will switch to assignments, gigs, events, weddings .. whatever photo job where they deal face to face with the customer and where they're paid well.
Thats already happening and has been for a while. I think there are a very small percentage of stock shooters with stock as their only income. Stock has become supplemental income and is probably becoming a less significant part of people's earnings. Up until a couple years ago stock was my only photography income. Now it's less than 50%.
there's nothing wrong about this, ultimately the customers will need to pay for assignments or being stuck with old stock images that have been used over and over by their competitors.
what were they expecting cutting off photographers ?
their customers probably won't notice, but any company advertising using micro images just screams "cheap" a mile away.
-
Demand doesn't meet supply, supply meets demand. So if iStock wants to price itself out of the market another supplier will be there to pick up the disaffected customers.
i think they know it and it's part of their marketing plan, keeping the rich buyers and leaving the cheapskates to the other agencies.
after all if they're serious about exclusivity it makes sense, for the trash they've already Thinkstock.
problem is, ideas are dime a dozen, it's the execution that matters and IS is doing a mess since the last 4-5 yrs.
compare it with SS, a simple and clear vision, a well executed business plan, a "no BS" approach, clear guidelines and easy pricing.
-
I have to say, because many of my best-selling vectors were 1-credit files before, the RPD increase on those are very welcome.
-
I have to say, because many of my best-selling vectors were 1-credit files before, the RPD increase on those are very welcome.
So long as your dls don't drop too much.
-
I wonder if Hobostocker loves to pay premium prices for anything he purchases? I wonder if you pay top dollar for fruit or bread and milk? Or do you check the pricing and buy smart? If so, aren't you doing the same as what you accuse the 'cheapskates' of?
If I throw a dinner party I buy good quality meat from the butcher, if I cook for myself, supermarket will do, as an example.
There is a need for all kinds of images, in all kinds of situations at all levels of pricing.
-
I have to say, because many of my best-selling vectors were 1-credit files before, the RPD increase on those are very welcome.
So long as your dls don't drop too much.
No, in fact, at the moment I'm seeing an increase in dls. But maybe it's just a temporary boost, we'll have to wait and see.
-
I wonder if Hobostocker loves to pay premium prices for anything he purchases? I wonder if you pay top dollar for fruit or bread and milk? Or do you check the pricing and buy smart? If so, aren't you doing the same as what you accuse the 'cheapskates' of?
If I throw a dinner party I buy good quality meat from the butcher, if I cook for myself, supermarket will do, as an example.
There is a need for all kinds of images, in all kinds of situations at all levels of pricing.
hahaha absolutely, i'm a cheapskate king if we talk about money, and if i had to make some low cost project for web or print i would probably never buy stock images too, i'll rather waste one week lifting pics on Flickr just for a matter of principle.
BUT .. here we are talking about design firms and publishers with employees and office and all, these guys will ask at the very minimum 500$ for a cheap brochure to their clients and yet they're horrified at the idea of paying 5-10 bucks for a high res images they need and that their clients like !
i'm the first saying buy cheap and sell high, that's no problem, but enough is enough ... especially considering the fact that in design and publishing photos are so important and take so much of the whole space !
there's certainly a need for rock bottom cheap imagery of postcard size, but it doesn't mean the market can sustain or provide such demand when it becomes impossible to make a profit or even recoup the production costs involved.
give them an inch and they will take a mile.
-
Not sure but it seems you are still ignoring the fact that there are thousands and thousands of customers not belonging to the design firms and publishers with employees and office and all category. You call them cheapskates, they are just different customers, with different needs, which should come with different pricing. You want to get rid of that market altogether so it seems, probably shooting yourself in the foot, losing a lot of revenue.
-
Not sure but it seems you are still ignoring the fact that there are thousands and thousands of customers not belonging to the design firms and publishers with employees and office and all category. You call them cheapskates, they are just different customers, with different needs, which should come with different pricing. You want to get rid of that market altogether so it seems, probably shooting yourself in the foot, losing a lot of revenue.
He might be right now, thought. I'm sure there WERE a lot of "cheapskates" and that they were responsible for lots of my sales, but I have hardly sold anything since the big "improvement" last weekend, so maybe they have all left the building.
-
With a less wide price-gap between Essentials (Main) and Signature, perhaps this change has been a bit more in favour of exclusive photographers. Still early days literally but sales do seem to have picked up a tiny bit for me.
-
That's possible. It's also possible that people are buying fewer images, especially those who normally look at the lower priced offerings.
-
With a less wide price-gap between Essentials (Main) and Signature, perhaps this change has been a bit more in favour of exclusive photographers. Still early days literally but sales do seem to have picked up a tiny bit for me.
It's still too early to know for sure, but I don't seem to be experiencing an uptick in sales. And my RPD is clearly well down from what it had been (with almost every sale being below the minimum of the range I had expected, so all old credits?).
I'm getting hit on both ends with this change, being an exclusive photographer and an indie videographer. The only saving grace is that video sales for me had dropped off to such a level that they are more or less inconsequential.
-
Sales volume appears to be down somewhat for me although RPD has actually increased a bit. Pretty sure my income will be down though ... as indeed will the money that Istock makes from my sales.
It seems that every time Istock introduces a major change like this my income takes a kicking ... but the hit to Istock's revenue must be more than 4x greater.
Makes me wonder why they keep cutting their own throats.
-
I woke up this morning with 5 new sales, and an EL. That hasn't happened in a long time. This will be one of my best weeks ever for regular dls and royalties. Increased dls on the ones that always sold as larges and increased royalties and sales on ones that usually sold in smaller sizes and one EL to top off the week. Old files coming back from the dead and a first time sale also happened this week.
-
I guess we all see different things depending on our specific portfolios, but there has definitely been an increase in my views and sales this week. It might be down to the season, but I just thought it might be of interest to some to know that it's not all doom and gloom after these changes.
I'm not too bothered about RPD at the moment - and I'm not saying that lightly - but RPD is only part of the equation. The collection moves last year was great for pushing up RPD but not in a sustainable way. Some of these files became much too expensive for what they were and faded into oblivion. I'm happy to see some of these files being downloaded more times this week than in the previous eight months of this year.
It could of course be just a glitch in the matrix, only time will tell, but I'll keep an open mind for now.
-
I can still make a cup of tea and feed the cat in the time it takes my stats page to load.
Slight uptick in sales but I'm holding off doing any cartwheels until it emerges as a sustained pattern.
-
Sales down a cliff, revenue down. It doesn't seem a good thing to be exclusive at istock right now.
-
For me, it's essentially too close to call one way or the other yet, although it looks a bit down.
-
From a buyer on the Facebook page: "I got a promo email from you yesterday offering 10 free credits when I purchase 10 -- price listed in the promo is $2/credit. YESTERDAY! I went to your site today to make the purchase, and find it seems the whole deal is obsolete -- yet it says in the email it's valid until December 31st, 2014. What's going on here?"
Fail.
-
From a buyer on the Facebook page: "I got a promo email from you yesterday offering 10 free credits when I purchase 10 -- price listed in the promo is $2/credit. YESTERDAY! I went to your site today to make the purchase, and find it seems the whole deal is obsolete -- yet it says in the email it's valid until December 31st, 2014. What's going on here?"
Fail.
So now it's XXXL for a dollar? (Assuming the promo is working for someone)
I wonder how they are figuring our commissions on those sales. For those on the low end is it 15% of $2.00 for the total 20 credits, or are they spreading out the purchase to $1.00 per credit so they pay 15% of a dollar? (Can you say dollar photo club?). Or do we get 15% of 2.00 for 10 credits and 15% of free for the others. So much for Lobo's $8.00 to $15.00 per credit. We can expect the low royalties to continue.
-
There used to be a sign-up offer of 10 free credits (no purchase necessary) - indeed I still have hundreds of iStock/Moo cards with this offer and a redemption code. Although there's no expiry date on the card, the code doesn't now work (even when it worked it was a real pain to redeem, apparently) they said there is a free 10 credits on sign up, so it wasn't a problem. I normally score it out on my card with a felt pen in case anyone complains. (How lo-tech.)
Rumour has it we got $1 for each (dl or credit, can't remember). That was said by forum moderators, but I never saw it written officially anywhere.
-
Not sure but it seems you are still ignoring the fact that there are thousands and thousands of customers not belonging to the design firms and publishers with employees and office and all category. You call them cheapskates, they are just different customers, with different needs, which should come with different pricing. You want to get rid of that market altogether so it seems, probably shooting yourself in the foot, losing a lot of revenue.
you would be right if your analysis could be backed by hard data, how much of our sales are actually coming from the bottom feeders ? nobody knows, it could be 1% as far as we know, or 50% for some obscure niches.
if they were really so many then it would be obvious from the number of sales in the cheapest price range but this is not happening, in the best scenario they're probably just 10-20% of the total.
remember the Pareto's law ... 80/20 ... the top 20% of the buyers paying off 80% of our sales.
who cares if we lose the bottom 20% ? let them move to Thinkstock or Flickr and good riddance.
-
how much of our sales are actually coming from the bottom feeders ? nobody knows, it could be 1% as far as we know, or 50% for some obscure niches.
if they were really so many then it would be obvious from the number of sales in the cheapest price range but this is not happening, in the best scenario they're probably just 10-20% of the total.
If you're exclusive then you were probably already priced out of the market for the "bottom feeders". I've just looked at the stats for the last three files I've sold and on the first page of DLs for those 50% of the sales (i.e. 30 out of 60) were for small or extra-small sizes.
(PS: You're an unusual person, in wishing good-riddance to what you think may be 10% or 20% of your sales. Most people don't enjoy a pay cut).
-
I don't think I would call web users bloggers and such bottom feeders. They are many of the customers that microsto k was started to reach, and they are a big part of our bread and butter. To me the bottom feeders are the ones that use pirated images or grab stuff off google for free.
-
I don't know if it means anything, but my Bigstock sales over the last three days have picked up sharply. Eight sales on a Saturday is very unusual - and they were well spaced out, too, not all from one person.
It's worth remembering that if Istock is the market leader by a large margin, as is widely supposed, then losing 20% of its customers to other sites could lead to much more than a 20% boost for places like BS.
-
I don't know if it means anything, but my Bigstock sales over the last three days have picked up sharply. Eight sales on a Saturday is very unusual - and they were well spaced out, too, not all from one person.
It's worth remembering that if Istock is the market leader by a large margin, as is widely supposed, then losing 20% of its customers to other sites could lead to much more than a 20% boost for places like BS.
And strangely all my sales on iStock stopped after Monday Sept 15th
Prior to that it was going pretty well with daily sales :(
-
I don't know if it means anything, but my Bigstock sales over the last three days have picked up sharply. Eight sales on a Saturday is very unusual - and they were well spaced out, too, not all from one person...
How are your SS sales in relation? I'm asking, because I'm also having a good month at BS, but only a so-so month on SS, and I'm wondering if the migration might SS to BS, rather than IS to BS...
-
How are your SS sales in relation? I'm asking, because I'm also having a good month at BS, but only a so-so month on SS, and I'm wondering if the migration might SS to BS, rather than IS to BS...
SS seems to be doing what it was before the iS change. Its been a bit weak for several months without BS showing any improvement (in fact, BS has looked quite horrible up to the last few days).
-
I see the pimp thread is "Let's showcase 3 - 4 Vetta images that are now a great value for our buyers!" . There still seems to be this idea that Vetta is hanging around. It's gone, right? Kaput. No further collection. Same with S+. "Vetta" is just a click button to nominate images for Getty, afaik.