MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Istock's back  (Read 25434 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: September 14, 2014, 11:04 »
0
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


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #51 on: September 14, 2014, 11:10 »
+1
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.

« Reply #52 on: September 14, 2014, 11:14 »
+10
^@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.

wds

« Reply #53 on: September 14, 2014, 11:21 »
0
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.

JKB

« Reply #54 on: September 14, 2014, 11:32 »
0
^@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.

« Reply #55 on: September 14, 2014, 11:43 »
0
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 ;)
« Last Edit: September 14, 2014, 11:46 by etudiante_rapide »

« Reply #56 on: September 14, 2014, 11:59 »
0
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.

« Reply #57 on: September 14, 2014, 12:04 »
+10
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"

Batman

« Reply #58 on: September 14, 2014, 12:11 »
0
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?

« Reply #59 on: September 14, 2014, 12:25 »
+1
I think he's an illustratir

« Reply #60 on: September 14, 2014, 12:35 »
+2
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

« Reply #61 on: September 14, 2014, 13:01 »
0
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.

« Reply #62 on: September 14, 2014, 14:50 »
-9
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.

« Reply #63 on: September 14, 2014, 15:09 »
+19
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.

« Reply #64 on: September 14, 2014, 15:16 »
-10
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.

« Reply #65 on: September 14, 2014, 15:59 »
+1
Well, I haven't invested anything in iStock, so the analogy stands (for me, at least).

You haven't uploaded your images there?

« Reply #66 on: September 14, 2014, 16:04 »
-6
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.)

« Reply #67 on: September 14, 2014, 16:27 »
+3
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.

« Reply #68 on: September 14, 2014, 17:03 »
+1
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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #69 on: September 14, 2014, 17:31 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2014, 17:51 by ShadySue »

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #70 on: September 14, 2014, 20:12 »
0
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 !

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #71 on: September 14, 2014, 20:25 »
+1
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.

 

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #72 on: September 14, 2014, 20:30 »
+2
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 !


Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #73 on: September 14, 2014, 20:35 »
0
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.

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #74 on: September 14, 2014, 20:40 »
-2
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.




 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
35 Replies
8314 Views
Last post January 20, 2012, 15:55
by cathyslife
6 Replies
2743 Views
Last post August 06, 2012, 15:13
by red
4 Replies
2467 Views
Last post April 04, 2016, 14:01
by Anyka
6 Replies
4042 Views
Last post April 27, 2016, 09:42
by marthamarks
1 Replies
1606 Views
Last post February 12, 2017, 17:49
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle