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

^@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.

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.

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?

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!"

Quote from: spike on September 14, 2014, 08:46

Quote from: cidepix on September 13, 2014, 19:12

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.

Quote from: spike link=topic=23445.msg393815#msg393815

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.

Quote from: spike on September 14, 2014, 15:16

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.)

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.

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 !

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 !

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.