Author Topic: iStock in the New Year (Read 69104 times)

willie · « **Reply #250 on:** January 07, 2010, 19:05 »

Quote from: Freezingpictures on January 07, 2010, 01:58

Quote from: dgilder on January 03, 2010, 13:39
.... If iStock were to fail or severely drop off, then I can always go back to spreading things around among the sites. ...

The only problem is that you would loose your Search Positions from your established files at the other agencies. I doubt I would do so well, if I would delete my portfolio and upload it again.

good point .
other factors not mentioned are such things as
- keywording style with IS is different with say DT
- IS preference for less" saturation" less "overprocessed" work to use their own words
that seems to plague SS regulars and vice versa

not to mention the images IS takes are most times quite distinct from the other Big 6.
iow, you have to reinvent your wheel all over again which will be more like a newbie.

just my own observations, as always... nothing to confirm i am a "stock-xpert" (argghh bad pun).

Digital66 · « **Reply #251 on:** January 07, 2010, 21:37 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 07, 2010, 18:43

The iStock credits/image price change has taken place.

Let's now see the effects of the new credit/image prices for exclusives and non exclusives.

gostwyck · « **Reply #252 on:** January 07, 2010, 21:52 »

Quote from: Digital66 on January 07, 2010, 21:37

Let's now see the effects of the new credit/image prices for exclusives and non exclusives.

One exclusive reported a Medium sale for $5.50. That's over 3x what an independent contributor would receive for a similar sale __ and that's before the Exclusive+ collection comes in. I'm expecting mainly jubilant reports from exclusives in the end-of-month forum thread.

Digital66 · « **Reply #253 on:** January 07, 2010, 23:19 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 07, 2010, 21:52

Quote from: Digital66 on January 07, 2010, 21:37
Let's now see the effects of the new credit/image prices for exclusives and non exclusives.

One exclusive reported a Medium sale for $5.50. That's over 3x what an independent contributor would receive for a similar sale __ and that's before the Exclusive+ collection comes in. I'm expecting mainly jubilant reports from exclusives in the end-of-month forum thread.

Time will tell... Some will be happy

, some will be angry

, others will cry

, and others won't not know what to do

keo · « **Reply #254 on:** January 07, 2010, 23:29 »

Time will tell... Some will be happy

, some will be angry

, others will cry

, and others won't not know what to do

[/quote]

Exclusive members will be happy

, Designers will be angry

, Clients will cry

, and Non-exclusive won't not know what to do

adamkaz · « **Reply #255 on:** January 08, 2010, 00:30 »

Had a small for $3.00, an X-small for $1.20, Medium for $5.80 among a few others... these smaller sizes are where exclusives will see the biggest increase in earnings due to their frequency and their higher percentage increase.

sharpshot · « **Reply #256 on:** January 08, 2010, 04:31 »

Perhaps a lot of buyers will see the new prices and wont be able to find non-exclusive images so easy, so they will go elsewhere and a lot of non-exclusives will be

There has been so much speculation about what will happen. I expect to see my istock earning slump and have become used to that happening with best match changes. If the slump isn't too big and I can make up for it with the other sites, I will be pleased.

GeoPappas · « **Reply #257 on:** January 08, 2010, 05:43 »

Quote from: sjlocke on January 07, 2010, 18:43

The iStock credits/image price change has taken place.

Yes, but the more important question is: Did the best match change?

Klauts · « **Reply #258 on:** January 08, 2010, 06:24 »

Quote from: adamkaz on January 08, 2010, 00:30

Had a small for $3.00, an X-small for $1.20, Medium for $5.80 among a few others... these smaller sizes are where exclusives will see the biggest increase in earnings due to their frequency and their higher percentage increase.

For the sake of comparison,
I just sold a Medium for 1.50$ royalty. * that's almost 4 times less.

packerguy · « **Reply #259 on:** January 08, 2010, 08:13 »

Right now it is easy for the buyers to determine the pricing with out clicking on the thumbnail (crown vs. no crown).

Also, from a couple of sample searches I did, it does not appear the best match has changed. Not yet anyway.

willie · « **Reply #260 on:** January 08, 2010, 09:56 »

Quote from: Klauts on January 08, 2010, 06:24

Quote from: adamkaz on January 08, 2010, 00:30
Had a small for $3.00, an X-small for $1.20, Medium for $5.80 among a few others... these smaller sizes are where exclusives will see the biggest increase in earnings due to their frequency and their higher percentage increase.

For the sake of comparison,
I just sold a Medium for 1.50$ royalty. that's almost 4 times less.

for the sake of comparision too,
i just had 5 combined sales of one image at IS totalling $5 odd,
and the same image also got a single dl at 3 d studio totalling $5 odd.
hmm, i wonder if the same buyer went to IS first or 3 d studio.

oh well, some of us paid more at the shopping centre while others pick up the same good at the dollar store. i guess more ppl visited the dollar store in micro stock

cthoman · « **Reply #261 on:** January 08, 2010, 11:58 »

I noticed that the advanced price search for illustrations went to ranges to lump the exclusives and non-exclusives together, so it functions the same as the size search for photos. I wonder if buyers will ask for a sort by price search and will IS comply if they do.

Pixart · « **Reply #262 on:** January 08, 2010, 12:58 »

Quote from: Klauts on January 08, 2010, 06:24

Quote from: adamkaz on January 08, 2010, 00:30
Had a small for $3.00, an X-small for $1.20, Medium for $5.80 among a few others... these smaller sizes are where exclusives will see the biggest increase in earnings due to their frequency and their higher percentage increase.

For the sake of comparison,
I just sold a Medium for 1.50$ royalty. that's almost 4 times less.

I sold a medium today for $1.74. Doesn't the difference come from what kind of package the buyer purchased? Your buyer must have bought a larger package with a volume discount (or has older credits).

Klauts · « **Reply #263 on:** January 08, 2010, 13:31 »

Yeah but the difference isn't so dramatic. I always thought that IS exclusivity was logical only if your IS earnings are more than 60% of total or so, things look different now. Oh well it's not like I qualify, just started out.

Digital66 · « **Reply #264 on:** January 08, 2010, 14:25 »

Based on a gross credit value of $1.50 USD, IS royalties are now the following (according to my calculations):

Image Size xs s        m        l        xl         xxl        xxxl
Non-exclusive 0,30      0,90      1,80      3,00      4,50      6,00      7,50
Bronze Exclusive 0,75      1,88      3,75      5,63      7,50      9,38      11,25
Silver Exclusive 0,90      2,25      4,50      6,75      9,00      11,25   13,50
Gold Exclusive 1,05      2,63      5,25      7,88      10,50   13,13   15,75
Diamond Exclus 1,20      3,00      6,00      9,00      12,00   15,00   18,00

It's clear that the difference between exclusives' and non-exclusives' earnings are bigger now.

The most important thing to study now (for me at least) are the effects on the number of downlods for exclusives and non exclusives. Will exclusives keep selling as they have so far? Will they sell more? Or less? Will non exclusives have more sales now that their images are cheaper?

As for me, I have decided to wait and see before making any decision about becoming IS exclusive...

ShadySue · « **Reply #265 on:** January 08, 2010, 16:04 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 08, 2010, 04:31

Perhaps a lot of buyers will see the new prices and wont be able to find non-exclusive images so easy, so they will go elsewhere and a lot of non-exclusives will be

Why won't they be able to find them easily? They don't have little crowns under them: 'it's not rocket surgery' (TM)

lisafx · « **Reply #266 on:** January 08, 2010, 16:30 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 08, 2010, 16:04

'it's not rocket surgery' (TM)

LOL! Great mixed metaphor

I think when looking at 50 - 100 thumbnails on a page it is a bit of work to pick out the crownless images.

If I go exclusive I hope there is no sort by price. If I stay independent I hope there is.

Unfortunately what I hope means absolutely nothing to anyone be me... We will just have to wait and see what pans out.

Beach Bum · « **Reply #267 on:** January 08, 2010, 18:54 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 08, 2010, 16:30

Quote from: ShadySue on January 08, 2010, 16:04
'it's not rocket surgery' (TM)

LOL! Great mixed metaphor

I think when looking at 50 - 100 thumbnails on a page it is a bit of work to pick out the crownless images.

If I go exclusive I hope there is no sort by price. If I stay independent I hope there is.

Unfortunately what I hope means absolutely nothing to anyone be me... We will just have to wait and see what pans out.

I think there should be a search by price option. Why make it more difficult for the buyer to find the image that he needs at the price that he wants? If they're having to wade through hundreds of images at many different price points, they may just get disgusted with the whole process and go somewhere else.

vonkara · « **Reply #268 on:** January 08, 2010, 19:36 »

Most of designers don't care about prices. The difficulty to find the perfect image is more important than finding lower prices. They always have to deal with deadlines, limited budget is second in the priority order.

You can look at how the Vetta collection is successful, as an example of that.

qwerty · « **Reply #269 on:** January 08, 2010, 20:17 »

Quote from: Vonkara on January 08, 2010, 19:36

Most of designers don't care about prices. The difficulty to find the perfect image is more important than finding lower prices. They always have to deal with deadlines, limited budget is second in the priority order.

You can look at how the Vetta collection is successful, as an example of that.

Why do they buy from microstock then ?
I do agree thought the difference between $5 and $10 is less important than between $10 and $500
but I'm sure that sorting by price is an option that a lot of buyers will want.

Istock however will be unwilling to provide it because it will lessen the benefit for themselves and exclusive artists.

gostwyck · « **Reply #270 on:** January 08, 2010, 21:02 »

Quote from: qwerty on January 08, 2010, 20:17

Why do they buy from microstock then ?

To be honest the volume, variety (and the quality too) can actually be much higher on microstock than most trad agencies especially with niche subjects. Try a search for 'bacon sandwich' for example (or virtually any food subject) on Getty/Corbis/etc against a similar search on Istock. Trust me, IS wins hands down almost every time.

qwerty · « **Reply #271 on:** January 08, 2010, 21:14 »

umm I can see your point with that search. Looks like I won't be using getty for bacon sandwich needs.

vonkara · « **Reply #272 on:** January 08, 2010, 21:15 »

This is on page 2 of Alamy for "sandwich"... It's worth 365$ at full size (RF) and the image is upsized

Edited: This is why they buy at microstock

willie · « **Reply #273 on:** January 08, 2010, 21:43 »

Quote from: Vonkara on January 08, 2010, 21:15

This is on page 2 of Alamy for "sandwich"... It's worth 365$ at full size (RF) and the image is upsized

yes i remember someone telling me that.
i think we have all been brainwashed by the proliferation of micro sites to think that low price is the way to make money, and that everybody else is starving. that 's warped mentality . but it's not unusual.
ask any fool in the street about the food business, and they will say xxx you know who serves million in food that taste (quote a chef) like paper. you won't hear too many will say that Cordon Bleu restaurant make as much or more money than the quick food business. simply because less people spend their time dining in Cordon Bleu restaurants than a quick food joint.
people do pay more, and those restaurant do have less customers to serve, but these customers do insist on paying more .
stock photographs are the same. but we are led to believe that only micro sites make money.
it's simple, if i am making money selling in an agency that pays more, do you think i would come here to brag about it?

Kngkyle · « **Reply #274 on:** January 09, 2010, 00:26 »

Seems like it is just a matter of time before it becomes financially smart to go exclusive for me. Once iStock accounts for 40-50% of my earnings it will be worth it. It was 36% last month.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock in the New Year (Read 69104 times)

willie

Digital66

gostwyck

Digital66

keo

adamkaz

sharpshot

GeoPappas

Klauts

packerguy

willie

cthoman

Pixart

Klauts

Digital66

ShadySue

lisafx

Beach Bum

vonkara

qwerty

gostwyck

qwerty

vonkara

willie

Kngkyle

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors