Doesn't seem like a huge deal to me, correct me if I'm wrong.

As someone pointed out in the thread, if business were good, they wouldn't be having a sale.

As long as it's brief and this doesn't become a way of life (training buyers to shop only during sales if you have them many times during the year), it's possible it might generate more volume. I do sell a fair number of XL and up sales and I'm not thrilled about them being reduced in price (and the RCs reduced) unless overall volume goes up.

I think there are many other ways of offering sales that do get you more volume (where you have to buy more than one item to get a sale price, or you get a better deal the more you buy).

Here's a thread on 2008 sales (consensus seems to be it didn't do much) This was the promo for that sale.

I did a bit of searching, and I don't think we had another spring sale. There was last winter's Vetta sale (which was perhaps trying to roll back the huge price increase while helping some meet their RC targets by giving them double (I think)). There's been the dollar bin and subscriptions as ways of spending less, but not a sale per se.

There have been a few deals in the past where credit bundles were discounted and that's great if you think people won't mind buying new bundles. Having the credits be reduced affects contributors now in a way it didn't back in 2008 - we get fewer RCs as well as a reduced royalty. I wonder if all future sales will be of this type?

Sale???  oh dear me, why not an auction?  pic goes to the highest bidders,  if they can find them that is.

Is it true that we don't have to pay for this sale with lower royalties?  I find it hard to believe for some reason.  Sales everywhere else seem to be quite good now, I can understand doing this in the middle of summer when sales slow down but it seems a strange time of the year to do it.

I worked in a wholesale for years. Each sale means that an item does not sell enough, or a company needs a little extra money for something. There are also promotional sales which are usually organized in the beginning of a business, to attract more customers for a better take-off.

On a very rare occasions a company would organize a sale that doesn't make profit, when it needs to get rid of some products that are close to their expiry date (which can't really be the case with pictures).

I'm sure Istock needs more money, probably because they didn't make enough to meet the financial plan. I trust them when they say the credit price will remain the same, but as I understood we will get the same percent of the new price that is 20% lower. Which means, we will get 20% less per sale that usual.

Quote from: sharpshot on May 24, 2011, 03:04

Is it true that we don't have to pay for this sale with lower royalties?  I find it hard to believe for some reason.  Sales everywhere else seem to be quite good now, I can understand doing this in the middle of summer when sales slow down but it seems a strange time of the year to do it.

Of course we are, the number of credits the buyers have to pay will be reduced (not the credit price itself). So for instance an XXXL will cost 20 instead of 25 credits.

Here's the announcement:

Starting next week we�re going to run a short sale on our largest images. We�re sending an email out to our clients letting them know that XL, XXL and XXXL files in all collections are 20% off from May 24 to June 6. So we should see people downloading those big files in higher volumes during that period.

As far as details go, it�s the cost in credits that�s being reduced by 20%, not the cost per credit. Contributors will still get the same royalty per value of credit used like always � again, people will be using fewer credits but downloading more so it should be a net boost for everybody.

You're right, it is costing the contributors.    I'm surprised. (not) I misspoke in my earlier post, sorry about that. I only half read it.

I worked in a wholesale for years. Each sale means that an item does not sell enough, or a company needs a little extra money for something. There are also promotional sales which are usually organized in the beginning of a business, to attract more customers for a better take-off.

On a very rare occasions a company would organize a sale that doesn't make profit, when it needs to get rid of some products that are close to their expiry date (which can't really be the case with pictures).

I'm sure Istock needs more money, probably because they didn't make enough to meet the financial plan. I trust them when they say the credit price will remain the same, but as I understood we will get the same percent of the new price that is 20% lower. Which means, we will get 20% less per sale that usual.

There is also the theory that getting feet in the door will result in the purchase of non-sale items too, or bring in shoppers that might have otherwise shopped the competition. 

Quote from: Dreamframer on May 24, 2011, 04:01

I worked in a wholesale for years. Each sale means that an item does not sell enough, or a company needs a little extra money for something. There are also promotional sales which are usually organized in the beginning of a business, to attract more customers for a better take-off.

On a very rare occasions a company would organize a sale that doesn't make profit, when it needs to get rid of some products that are close to their expiry date (which can't really be the case with pictures).

I'm sure Istock needs more money, probably because they didn't make enough to meet the financial plan. I trust them when they say the credit price will remain the same, but as I understood we will get the same percent of the new price that is 20% lower. Which means, we will get 20% less per sale that usual.

There is also the theory that getting feet in the door will result in the purchase of non-sale items too, or bring in shoppers that might have otherwise shopped the competition. 

I'm afraid that non-sale items always remain non-sale items, regardless of 20% discount. Non-sale items are usually given away for free in the end because no one wants them. Also, discounts usually attract those customers who want cheap stuff, not the ones who are willing to pay more, and those customers usually disappear after the discount waiting for another one.

This is all from my experience. I would like to be wrong tho.

In comparison with Shutterstock:

@dreamframer - I was refering to the items that were not on sale, as opposed to those that are bottom of the barrel and never sell anyway.  Supermarkets constantly have something on sale - it brings feet in the door to pick up the sale item, but while they are there customers pick up items at full price too.   If IS can get more feet in the door then they may get sales on the "sale" items, but may also get those same buyers picking up additional items that are not on sale - video, audio, smaller files, etc.  Bring them in the door with the sale then load up the cart with everything.  We can only hope....

Oh I understand now. And yes, we can only hope.

Here's a thought.  Why don't they have a sale on Vetta and Agency files.  Those are the prices the customers are complaining about.  Not the piddly prices we get for regular collection.

Should have known the income boost from P+ was too good to last. 

Sales and discounts are happening all the time at any given agency. And I'm sure that Shutterstock even offers steep discounts for huge clients as well. We just don't hear about it.

But (if they do) they still pay us the same full amount - so (if they do) they are entitled to offer all discounts they feel like.

Sales and discounts are happening all the time at any given agency. And I'm sure that Shutterstock even offers steep discounts for huge clients as well. We just don't hear about it.

I doubt that SS do. A year's subscription package is only $2400, hardly a major expense for a big user of images. They wouldn't need to discount PPD's either because if the customer was spending enough to warrant a discount then a subscription would be better value. That's the beauty of SS's business model. Nice & simple, easy to understand.

I kind of agree, but this business goes (or should go) both ways. Technically we're in this together (agency and contributor) so if a successful agent has a sale I don't mind taking a small hit if it leads to the promised outcome.

So I guess you don't mind them keeping the vast majority of money buyers pay for content? It's like a semi rhetorical question...

People always quote Alexa graphs. I do not know and have never known anyone who has the Alexa toolbar installed. From which these viewing figures are extrapolated. Not one single person.

I don't believe in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_Internet

Who the *, needs a sale in this Micro-scopic business, where prices are already smashed into smitherines. They need money, thats whats it all about, all the shambles and screw-ups have resulted in big-time loss of money.

Sale?? in this business,  never heard of anything so absurd.

snip
I expected your reaction but I also have to admit that offering discounts or freebies (most agencies even do freebies!) is an established form of advertising and marketing.
Its purpose is to initiate growth and as I mentioned before, if iStock in this example cannot live up to the expectations it's just going to be another strike against them.

OTOH, what are we supposed to do as IS offers this sale? Withdraw all of our images and take IS out of business?

I'd rather go down with the sinking ship and take what I can until they close the doors than dropping them now and therefore losing my family's health insurance. No thanks.
It didn't happen overnight that IS keeps "the vast majority of money buyers pay for content" so this sale is not going to make a difference either in regards how "reputable" and "sustainable" IS is.

Well, the only way to teach a company that it can't continue to suck suppliers dry and treat buyers and contributors like crap is to play to hard ball and hit them in the pocket. So my answer is a resounding YES! 

Also note that many people seem to have reported gradually increasing PP sales which likely means that some of the traffic has gone to other parts of the empire with different but probably related business models.

I think you'll find that most of the traffic is finding its way to SS rather than the PP. The growth of SS almost exactly mirrors the decline of Istock over the last 18 months or so on my data. The fact that Getty had to increase commissions for the PP to bribe folk into opting-in tells me that it hasn't been particularly successful.

Quote from: bunhill on May 24, 2011, 16:08

Also note that many people seem to have reported gradually increasing PP sales which likely means that some of the traffic has gone to other parts of the empire with different but probably related business models.

I think you'll find that most of the traffic is finding its way to Shutterstock rather than the PP. The growth of Shutterstock almost exactly mirrors the decline of Istock over the last 18 months or so on my data. The fact that Getty had to increase commissions for the PP to bribe folk into opting-in tells me that it hasn't been particularly successful.

Don't forget that Getty house contributors were given a take-it-or-leave-it new contract, part of which included the option for Getty to put the content onto Thinkstock & other subscription programs. No opt out for that offered to the Getty contributors (because they were fairly sure everyone would opt out).

Also, the last two 'lypses, Tokyo and London, included terms that required content from the lypse go into the Partner program even for those who were opted out for their portfolio in general.

The happy noises I hear from the PP monthly sales report seem to come from iStockers who never participated in a real subscription site (by that I mean iStock's subscriptions aren't really subscriptions the way SS et al. are) - they are bowled over by the high volume of downloads compared to what they're used to at iStock.

@FreeTransform - I did notice the vector in the e-mail about the sale and chuckled a bit. At software companies there's a notion of eating your own dog food (you have to use the software you build) - seems iStock could promote photos with photos and vectors with vectors, no?

... As for P+ - yes, I am happy to have the extra income for those sales.  Too bad that extra income will now evaporate as a result of this "sale", and stats go right back in the toilet...

That's the typical iStock "strategy". If you even think they might do something good to you it's just another kick in the ball$ (pardon my french) in the end.

Who the , needs a sale in this Micro-scopic business, where prices are already smashed into smitherines. They need money, thats whats it all about, all the shambles and screw-ups have resulted in big-time loss of money.

Sale?? in this business,  never heard of anything so absurd.

It's not so absurd at the most expensive microstock agency in the business. And maybe that's the whole idea. istock might have finally hit the ceiling, and if so, now they're testing a price reduction.

This sale is doing really nothing for me, haven't had a single XL+ since it started 36h ago...Not that sales aren't pathetic compared to SS anyway, just over 25% (of SS earnings) at this moment, but this figures are of course without the PP sales (not that they turn things around)

No difference for me too.
Today strange L format sales while XL photos only 1 or 2 credit more.

Im having really good days here!  dont know whats happening?  but its almost back to normal and the P+, are selling well.

me too.
after my message,  i sold 10 XL and still selling L size

I don't know about the rest of you, but I haven't sold a single XL or above all weekend and only a couple on Friday.  I don't see this "sale" having any positive affect on my downloads. 

It isn't really much of a sale. I don't find a couple credits off particularly enticing.

Nothing happening with my port, 26.50 for the month. Guess I'm out with a nature port. Was good while it lasted. Never thought it would just flat out die like this.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I haven't sold a single XL or above all weekend and only a couple on Friday.  I don't see this "sale" having any positive affect on my downloads. 

.

Ditto. Nothing has sparked any obvious bumps in my sales.

Printscreen, or it didn't happen .

Just kidding of course;)

haven't sold one xl or larger since the sale.  but downloads have picked up so maybe the sale is at least getting people to come to the site and buy something.

Quote from: jamirae on May 30, 2011, 18:27

haven't sold one xl or larger since the sale.  but downloads have picked up so maybe the sale is at least getting people to come to the site and buy something.

I think it's just the best match shift.  As many people are reporting plummeting sales the last several days as are reporting improved sales.  Some win, some lose.   

yes, I think you're probably right.  I"ll take any sales I can get at this point!   

My sales have been down since the sale began, ven allowing for the holiday weekend) and no larger size sales.
Same as the last time, unfortunately. 

Its helping me!  Ive made 8K,  during this sale so far.

Last week was very up and down - but I would say that the number of XL and up images in the mix was greater than I typically see. OTOH, if the total numbers aren't up, it doesn't do me any good to see the mix of sizes change.

Part of my SS portfolio went live on Saturday and my first sale of 36 cents beat the 28 cents I got for a (P+) XS image at iStock the same day. Has a way of softening any of my qualms about subscriptions

Quote from: lagereek on June 05, 2011, 05:28

Its helping me!  Ive made 8K,  during this sale so far.

wow.  that's amazing!  congrats.

I don't know what he means, but I don't think it is possible that he means $8,000 in less than two weeks.

His iStock profile says he's sold > 40,000 licenses with a portfolio of 1,600 images. At an average of $2 per download he'd have sold 4,000 licenses to make $8K.

I don't know what he means, but I don't think it is possible that he means $8,000 in less than two weeks.

His iStock profile says he's sold > 40,000 licenses with a portfolio of 1,600 images. At an average of $2 per download he'd have sold 4,000 licenses to make $8K.

I'm curious too. 

Christian's a great photographer, but I am skeptical even he could have sold either $8,000 worth or 8,000 rc's worth of images in just a few days.

Chris, can you elaborate? 

Quote from: jsnover on June 05, 2011, 12:45

I don't know what he means, but I don't think it is possible that he means $8,000 in less than two weeks.

His iStock profile says he's sold > 40,000 licenses with a portfolio of 1,600 images. At an average of $2 per download he'd have sold 4,000 licenses to make $8K.

I'm curious too. 

Christian's a great photographer, but I am skeptical even he could have sold either $8,000 worth or 8,000 rc's worth of images in just a few days.

Chris, can you elaborate? 

He's probably busy celebrating it on a 50m private yacht with nice, topless company or something;)

Quote from: lisafx on June 05, 2011, 17:12

Quote from: jsnover on June 05, 2011, 12:45

I don't know what he means, but I don't think it is possible that he means $8,000 in less than two weeks.

His iStock profile says he's sold > 40,000 licenses with a portfolio of 1,600 images. At an average of $2 per download he'd have sold 4,000 licenses to make $8K.

I'm curious too. 

Christian's a great photographer, but I am skeptical even he could have sold either $8,000 worth or 8,000 rc's worth of images in just a few days.

Chris, can you elaborate? 

Hi and thanks for the compliment, WE are the greatest arent we?

NO! blimey the 8K, a week was meant as a joke, its an impossibillity! although I have to say, the sale has been very good to me and by my calculations Im on my way of meeting the targets.
like Black-sheep says, all this glossary, maths and everything, its impossible to understand it? they dont use plain language, do they?

Frankly, to be honest, regarding IS, I have stopped trying to understand, dont really care anymore, they can do whatever they want, nothing would surprise me the slightest. From the moment Bruce sold out to Getty, I knew this would happen, Im actually surprised it took them this long to ruin it.

best.

Oh...that was a joke... ha..ha..ha.. I get it.. That was soooo funny

If nobody is laughing at your jokes, they probably aren't funny. Just sayin'. 

Quote from: jsnover on June 05, 2011, 12:18

Last week was very up and down - but I would say that the number of XL and up images in the mix was greater than I typically see. OTOH, if the total numbers aren't up, it doesn't do me any good to see the mix of sizes change.

Part of my Shutterstock portfolio went live on Saturday and my first sale of 36 cents beat the 28 cents I got for a (P+) XS image at iStock the same day. Has a way of softening any of my qualms about subscriptions

If you just started at Shutterstock how are you getting, 36 cents instead of the usual 25 cent startup royalty? Did they continue your earnings total from when you were there before exclusive at IS? Just curious.

Because I didn't just start - I am contributor #249, so go way back. I still have my old account with enough sales from before to qualify me for 36 cents. I don't have all my old portfolio online - I had left 600 images there but when they got opted back in it was without any keywords! At any rate, I'm both old and new as it were

I had left 600 images there but when they got opted back in it was without any keywords! At any rate, I'm both old and new as it were

What so you mean had left? Were thy deactivated? Can you even do that on SS?

Quote from: ibogdan on June 07, 2011, 02:32

I'm sorry for being a little off-topic but what's the lowest commission for a large sale? I sold a large sized image today (10 credits) for only $1.2. Usually all my large sales were in the range of 2-2.6$ as far as I remember.
Thank you!

it depends on the buyer... I had a XS for 0.07$ the other day.. which means I would get 0.7$ for a L 

If you questioned Support about really low value sales, they used to always click on the pat answer that these were old credits from about 2004. Now, though, it's an open secret that some buyers can buy credits far lower than advertised ('as low as �0.66 per credit' is the UK default), I believe 47c has been mooted.
Someone with a lot of spare money and time they don't know what to do with could no doubt take out some case against iStock inasmuch as these tiny credit prices are not made clear to contributors when they sign up ('false pretences'? 'full disclosure'). I'm not that person, though.