Quote from: goober on March 07, 2013, 05:57

There is also the fact that many central banks are printing money which makes the price of everything rise. I went to MacDonald's last week for the first time in 3 years. The price of a big Mac was $8.60 AUD. I was shocked as the last time it was around $6. Then I though about some of my images selling for $2 and felt a bit discouraged.

The cost of living in Australia has gone through the roof over the last few years. Interesting report on the BBC's 'From Our Own Correspondent';

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21519050

Australian microstockers must have been particularly hard hit as the $US has devalued hugely relative to AUD and local prices have increased.

Yes, we had a good run a few years ago when the US dollar was .65c but now we're down to eating beans. To make matters worse I pay more in tax than I live on. The average house where I live is $500,000.

Quote from: lisafx on March 06, 2013, 19:09

If I were exclusive, I would share your worries about these price rises chasing customers away.  However, to suggest other sites follow Istock's lead seems pointless.  Other sites are not looking for ways to drive their buyers away, but to attract and retain them.

Yeah... the problem is that the contributors get screwed at the same time.

This could easily be avoided by not selling at the cheap sites and thus forcing buyers to sites that pay us what we deserve. An on demand license sold at VectorStock for a lousy dollar is a lost sale at iStock for 25 dollars. It annoys me that even the really professional artists and photographers are uploading their stuff to the cheap sites... it's suicide in the long run.

I don't really understand why Shutterstock is so popular amongst contributors either... what's so great about getting 25 cents for a sale? It doesn't matter if the subcription model means more sales... it's still a very bad deal for the contributor. The subscription sites are killing us.

Well, well. Just a little afternoon whining from me.

where have you been all this time? you need to check the earnings report here more often, contributors do from 35% to 60% of their income at SS, what is your bright advice? shall we dump SS and be happy with iStock?

ahhh I understand, you want SS down so iStock is UP, actually you should know better perhaps your options...

I'm very new to stock, in that I've only been a contributor for a couple of months and I've never even bought a single image/vector before that. (Any stock that I worked with in the past as a designer were always already provided) I'm also a hobbyist. My first reaction to the state of the industry when I first entered, though, was that everything was too darn cheap. As much as iStock's been the center of controversy, I do think that their pricing is fair. (except for the fact that they give 15% - 20% to non-ex)

I remember being flabbergasted at Vectorstock's pricing at first, at how certain vectors that would easily be priced at 12 to 15 credits at iStock are easily bought at 1 credit there. I was initially very apprehensive about uploading there as I thought it could hurt sales on iStock, but I found this to be largely irrelevant since many stick with whatever agencies their employers chose. Since then, I've put stuff up on Vectorstock and it's been giving me decent returns, covering for its low pricing with relatively high volume. (If I had the same number of average sales on Vectorstock imposed onto iStock and its pricing, I could pretty much drop one of my two jobs.)

I don't like that it's cheap. But the way I see it, that's the way the industry is moving towards, and it's very quickly becoming the norm. I think it's all about dealing and adapting.

I'm very new to stock, in that I've only been a contributor for a couple of months and I've never even bought a single image/vector before that. (Any stock that I worked with in the past as a designer were always already provided) I'm also a hobbyist. My first reaction to the state of the industry when I first entered, though, was that everything was too darn cheap. As much as iStock's been the center of controversy, I do think that their pricing is fair. (except for the fact that they give 15% - 20% to non-ex)

I remember being flabbergasted at Vectorstock's pricing at first, at how certain vectors that would easily be priced at 12 to 15 credits at iStock are easily bought at 1 credit there. I was initially very apprehensive about uploading there as I thought it could hurt sales on iStock, but I found this to be largely irrelevant since many stick with whatever agencies their employers chose. Since then, I've put stuff up on Vectorstock and it's been giving me decent returns, covering for its low pricing with relatively high volume. (If I had the same number of average sales on Vectorstock imposed onto iStock and its pricing, I could pretty much drop one of my two jobs.)

I don't like that it's cheap. But the way I see it, that's the way the industry is moving towards, and it's very quickly becoming the norm. I think it's all about dealing and adapting.

But it COULD work differently. If everybody just left VectorStock (for instance) the site would die and buyers would have to go elsewhere and pay more. But I guess the whole discussion is pointless because it will never happen anyway...  Tens of thousands of contributors would have to boycott the same sites at the same time.

Quote from: davidgoh on March 07, 2013, 10:26

I don't like that it's cheap. But the way I see it, that's the way the industry is moving towards, and it's very quickly becoming the norm. I think it's all about dealing and adapting.

No, actually that's where we were.  We should be moving away from that.

Amen to that.

Quote from: davidgoh on March 07, 2013, 10:26

I don't like that it's cheap. But the way I see it, that's the way the industry is moving towards, and it's very quickly becoming the norm. I think it's all about dealing and adapting.

No, actually that's where we were.  We should be moving away from that.

too bad that is just not the reality we live in (not being sarcastic)

Another sample of good education from our friend Pieman. Hard to believe that Istock allows this kind of behavior. Totally unprofessional.

----------------------------------

Posted By imgendesign:

Istock should really raise those prices up a bit. $36? Why not $40. $27? make it $30, it's nice and round. That way they can make sure ALL of the customers we have left go looking for other sites that are cheaper and run smoother.

----------------------------

Lobo

Posted 5 mins ago
Quote

I'll run this up the chain to see if we can make this a priority! Thanks for the great idea! I will make sure we get people on this immediately. It's comments like this that help us continue to make sure our contributors are heard!

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule. I know you didn't have to do us this great favor but because you have I will name my new bamboo plant after you. I hope you don't mind if I shorten it's name, as it's name tag will only allow for 5 characters due to the fact that I use bubble letters for all my name tags.
   

Quote from: Chico on March 07, 2013, 12:12

Lobo

Posted 5 mins ago
Quote

I'll run this up the chain to see if we can make this a priority! Thanks for the great idea! I will make sure we get people on this immediately. It's comments like this that help us continue to make sure our contributors are heard!

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule. I know you didn't have to do us this great favor but because you have I will name my new bamboo plant after you. I hope you don't mind if I shorten it's name, as it's name tag will only allow for 5 characters due to the fact that I use bubble letters for all my name tags.

is Lobo aware that such a comment to a customer would make him fired on the spot in any other normal company ?

why nobody writes to istock's CEO ? i can't believe Getty is employing such an unprofessional employee.

They're not. He's a contractor, not an employee.

I thought he was just responding to an ironic/sarcastic post in kind.

It seems like pouring gasoline on a fire, but I guess there aren't really consequences since most contributors are flame retardant. 

Quote from: davidgoh on March 07, 2013, 10:26

I don't like that it's cheap. But the way I see it, that's the way the industry is moving towards, and it's very quickly becoming the norm. I think it's all about dealing and adapting.

No, actually that's where we were.  We should be moving away from that.

It's not just that the price went up too much, it's compounded by reducing the payment % to most contributors.  How do you raise prices and the reduce commissions.  Not a very good long term strategy for keeping contributors and buyers happy. 

Or I am missing something.   
 

What you might be missing is that the iStock exclusive numbers may represent a smaller number of more successful suppliers.  We don't know how many votes each number represents, so we can't tell much about trends.  We may assume the Shutterstock number represents a large number of votes, and will be less susceptible to variations. (We may assume that, but we can't be sure.)

I'd be interested in seeing average portfolio size at IS for independents versus exclusives. Just a guess but I bet the exclusives in general have much larger portfolios.

I shouldnt have included the exclusives. 82 is really low for SS, it used to be 95-98

I shouldnt have included the exclusives. 82 is really low for SS, it used to be 95-98

Ah!  I understand now.  I do think part of it is that February is a short month, so the number is going to be a little bit lower naturally.  But the rest of it, I don't know how to explain.