pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock New Sub. Model Just Announced!  (Read 25409 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2014, 21:58 »
+17
SS should have been raising prices gently over the years so that we could all make fair money from our images, instead of forcing this cut-price war.

So, this latest iStock move is Shutterstock's fault?  I hate the low prices being offered for our images as much as you do but I'm pretty sure that SS has had these low prices for quite some time and that for much of that time iStock was doing very well.  So, I have a hard time believing that the low prices at SS are just now becoming responsible for iStock's troubles....perhaps it has something to do with poor management decisions, poor treatment of contributors, buyer discontent with repeated price changes, multiple site issues making for a poor buyer experience, etc, etc.
Didn't iStock get started by making images available for free?? Perhaps the price wars started there and then.
I'm not defending Shutterstock by any means but I think iStock contributors need to look at their 'agent' for answers to their concerns.




« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2014, 22:08 »
+18
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:56 by tickstock »

mlwinphoto

« Reply #27 on: March 03, 2014, 22:10 »
+11
Nothing to be happy about with this announcement.  The best thing iStock had going for it was that it wasn't Shutterstock, no cheap subs.  Oh well, I've been planning for a worst case scenario maybe now it's time to take some action?

I think it's time for all of us to take some action.....some action against these low prices and low royalties....but that's for another thread.

« Reply #28 on: March 03, 2014, 22:15 »
+27
Nothing to be happy about with this announcement.  The best thing iStock had going for it was that it wasn't Shutterstock, no cheap subs.  Oh well, I've been planning for a worst case scenario maybe now it's time to take some action?

Now we know they're in trouble!

« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2014, 22:19 »
+17
.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 23:55 by tickstock »

« Reply #30 on: March 04, 2014, 00:38 »
+17
Wow. I guess they did not understand that if they paid exclusives a decent amount artists would have come flocking to them and dropping everyone else. Instead they keep doing the opposite. They WERE in a position to do that a couple of years ago when they had a duopoly but no longer. One would also think they would at the very LEAST match the $.38 from SS.

« Reply #31 on: March 04, 2014, 00:49 »
+1
Wow. I guess they did not understand that if they paid exclusives a decent amount artists would have come flocking to them and dropping everyone else. Instead they keep doing the opposite. They WERE in a position to do that a couple of years ago when they had a duopoly but no longer. One would also think they would at the very LEAST match the $.38 from SS.
I agree, I will wait to see what the new price point will be for the sub packages, but I am not at all surprised they are undercutting royalties.

If Istock had not made so many mistakes shutterstock would not have gained so much traction using price undercutting to garner market share.

With the market margins they gained in the last two years SS has put Istock in a most unfortunate position. I would be surprised if this does not drive pricing lower, Istock needs to gain back the market share they lost by sticking it to submitter/buyers. They forgot that many of us are also buyers and we will see if SS also forgets this fact.

« Reply #32 on: March 04, 2014, 01:05 »
0
What!!! Only 2 pages?  This announcement must have come very late in the day.  I bet it's 15 by the time I get up in the morning.

« Reply #33 on: March 04, 2014, 02:10 »
+1
awesome news, as usual! ;D

« Reply #34 on: March 04, 2014, 02:15 »
0
Nothing to be happy about with this announcement.  The best thing iStock had going for it was that it wasn't Shutterstock, no cheap subs.  Oh well, I've been planning for a worst case scenario maybe now it's time to take some action?

Now we know they're in trouble!
I'm not sure they are in trouble, subs seem to be very profitable for them.  It's me I'm worried about not them.

more profitable than credits? that is a big change in your speech but I do understand it!

stocked

« Reply #35 on: March 04, 2014, 02:30 »
+3
Woo-hoo!  ;)

« Reply #36 on: March 04, 2014, 02:39 »
+9
yay Istock way to go. Looks like I'll be down to 15% when all their buyers move to subscriptions.

« Reply #37 on: March 04, 2014, 03:33 »
+10
the thread at iStock forum is hilarious, there are still exclusives supporting this :o

curiously most of them were against subscriptions but now at least iStock is doing something, something is everything they have at the moment... :D
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 04:00 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #38 on: March 04, 2014, 03:46 »
+9
This is the "if you can't beat them, join them" business model - lazy and myopic.

Probably the idea of some twit with an MBA (Master of Bugger All)





« Reply #39 on: March 04, 2014, 03:50 »
+23
hmmm - I remember someone going loudly exclusive with IS because SS was the demon with the subscription model. And what do you say now...?

Professionals deal with professionals*


*this probably becomes one of the most quoted sentences in stock history ;)

« Reply #40 on: March 04, 2014, 03:51 »
+1
Wow. I guess they did not understand that if they paid exclusives a decent amount artists would have come flocking to them and dropping everyone else. Instead they keep doing the opposite. They WERE in a position to do that a couple of years ago when they had a duopoly but no longer. One would also think they would at the very LEAST match the $.38 from SS.

4 cents a sale its a lot of money to improve all the bugs etc etc, I can tell you one thing, SS isn't worried about this

« Reply #41 on: March 04, 2014, 03:57 »
+5
hmmm - I remember someone going loudly exclusive with IS because SS was the demon with the subscription model. And what do you say now...?

Professionals deal with professionals*


*this probably becomes one of the most quoted sentences in stock history ;)

oh Yuri is a different case, not only he is still at 10 agencies but he will be out of the subs as well, he is so big that he picks his own buyers LOL

AndresR is doing well too, 4 months after being exclusive and still portfolio at SS ;D

« Reply #42 on: March 04, 2014, 04:04 »
+3
I wonder if spike saw this one coming ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #43 on: March 04, 2014, 04:37 »
+4
Spike's in rehab....where we all will be if this continues.

Ron

« Reply #44 on: March 04, 2014, 04:37 »
+3
From Lobo

Quote
We will be revisiting the idea of allowing RCs to apply to Image Subscriptions after we see how things go.

ShadySue

« Reply #45 on: March 04, 2014, 04:39 »
+2
Still, SS seems to be maintaining IQ standards, whereas iS is has let IQ and keywording standards go to the dogs.
I saw one particular image last week, fairly recently accepted, where the main subject was totally overblown and out of focus. Both issues could be easily seen on the thum.
Mind you, though for a while SS searches seemed cleaner, some of my recent search comparisons have been less so.

« Reply #46 on: March 04, 2014, 04:44 »
+2
B*stards.
I said often, and only earlier this afternoon by SM here that I was sure this was why they've been suppressing new files for so long; and so it has proved.
Sell files stupidly cheaply, just like SS, and don't even give us RCs.
B*stards.
Sadly, I'm busy until Friday, but then time to start working out which files will be deactivated before April begins.
Just furious.
If I wanted to sell for stupid prices, I'd be on SS.
B*stards. (Did I say that?)

stupid prices??? agree.... BUT don't forget the volume... the big majority are reporting SS as the biggest earner.

At the end they are not so ''stupid''  ;)
« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 06:18 by nicku »

« Reply #47 on: March 04, 2014, 04:46 »
+1
From Lobo

Quote
We will be revisiting the idea of allowing RCs to apply to Image Subscriptions after we see how things go.

even that (in 2020) doesn't paint a better picture, the main purpose of exclusive content was the price and uniqueness of the files, now every buyer can get them for lets say 10 times less, its what iStock/exclusives didn't want to pursue but as Craig said on the forum this time they have a strategy and this time will work

« Reply #48 on: March 04, 2014, 04:48 »
+2
From Lobo

Quote
We will be revisiting the idea of allowing RCs to apply to Image Subscriptions after we see how things go.

My guess is that they'll leave the RC system just as it is now - every year they'll announce that nobody is going to drop a level if they miss their targets. Of course nobody will rise a level, either, because of the massive shift from credit to subscription sales.

« Reply #49 on: March 04, 2014, 04:58 »
+6
From Lobo

Quote
We will be revisiting the idea of allowing RCs to apply to Image Subscriptions after we see how things go.

My guess is that they'll leave the RC system just as it is now - every year they'll announce that nobody is going to drop a level if they miss their targets. Of course nobody will rise a level, either, because of the massive shift from credit to subscription sales.

Doing that would effectively ensure that almost all new contributors never rise above the base rate. Which might be just what they want.

« Last Edit: March 04, 2014, 05:12 by BaldricksTrousers »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
1145 Views
Last post July 29, 2007, 09:15
by perkmeup
2 Replies
2747 Views
Last post July 14, 2008, 06:44
by Adeptris
40 Replies
17310 Views
Last post February 14, 2009, 13:01
by yingyang0
4 Replies
6917 Views
Last post August 30, 2010, 10:55
by RGebbiePhoto
8 Replies
3014 Views
Last post December 05, 2013, 16:07
by heywoody

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results