Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 16, 2014, 23:12

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on September 16, 2014, 22:52

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. 

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 16, 2014, 12:38
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.

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on September 16, 2014, 12:48

Quote from: Hobostocker on September 16, 2014, 12:05
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".

Quote from: Hobostocker on September 17, 2014, 09:55

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 16, 2014, 12:38
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.

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on September 16, 2014, 12:46

Quote from: Hobostocker on September 16, 2014, 12:05
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.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 17, 2014, 10:07
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.

Quote from: Noedelhap on September 17, 2014, 12:51
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.

Quote from: ShadySue on September 17, 2014, 13:04

Quote from: Noedelhap on September 17, 2014, 12:51
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.

Quote from: Valo on September 17, 2014, 13:28
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.

Quote from: Valo on September 18, 2014, 12:36
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.

Quote from: JKB on September 18, 2014, 13:36
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.

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 19, 2014, 19:40
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.