http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=67639&page=1

That'll create some interesting reactions.

There goes the neighborhood!

One thing that I like is that they are offering an opt-out either for all images or individual images.

Another is that larger image sizes will cost more credits.  So all sizes are not the same subscription price.

We'll have to wait and see what royalties will be.

But just to make it clear - I really hate subscriptions.  They only benefit the agencies and the buyers.

will see, not sure how I feel about it until I read the whole details.

Subscription will be credit based, so subscribers will still pay more for larger files!!

This was inevitable, but it's sad to see.

Only two out of the three parties involved in stock will benefit through this, and guess what, it won't be us the contributors because if it was they wouldn't be doing it.

Somewhat different model than the other sub sites.
The subs are for credits per day and not images per day.

I think this just might work to everyones advantage.

Well I can't see the difference... 

What they didn't say yet is if there will be a different price (or credit) for different size.  Hope so!

And for the first time, some of the comments on their forum are not all Yay and Yahoo!

I guess we have to wait but I cannot say I'm very happy with this idea.

Claude

I see we have two threads on the same subject:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php/topic,4154.msg40750/topicseen.html#new

And for the first time, some of the comments on their forum are not all Yay and Yahoo!

But the first one was. 

Regards,
Adelaide

Now, what will be prices and our shares?  I see some exclusives complaing that the current % on a very small $/credit will be very unattractive for them.  I wonder if exclusives will get a fixed minimum and the rest of mortals will have to accept 20% of some cents?

There should be a fixed mimimum for everyone, and it should be at least as much as the industry standard, whatever that turns out to be.  Fine if it is higher for exclusives.

If istock ends up cannibalizing SS sales and paying less per download then don't they stand to lose a lot of big players? 

I'm not so sure about that, what I understand (but I hope I'm wrong) is that the amount we will receive depends on how many photos the buyer will download on a given day...

There was one post (I'm not sure if accurate) that states that.  If a buyer has, let's say, $4 a day in credits, and he buys only one image at XS that day, the lucky photographer would get 20% (or whatever is his share) of these $4. 

If this is true, I'm not sure there will be a minimum (or a reasonable minimum) for the photographer.  You know, "you can get 80c on a good day and this will pay for the 10c of a bad day".

Regards,
Adelaide

This is from the thread on iStock and from an admin (underlined by me):

�You will not be able to opt out certain sizes, but unlike other sites, we are giving out credits per day, NOT images per day, so if they buy larger images they use more credits (i.e. different sized images are not the same price under our plan).

It's the only way we could let them buy any type of files. It's totally unique in the industry. We'll be the only place one subscription will buy you video, vectors or photos.

We are not ready to discuss royalties & pricing quite yet, but I think you're going to be happy; you're not going to want to opt out. Seriously. �

So let's wait and see...
Claude

I think this is a major bummer. It is nice that the larger images - and I assume vectors - will require more credits than smaller ones. However I am all but certain that iStock will end up pocketing the unused subscription credits. That's how all the plans work and one of the reasons the sites can make money.

The opt out is good - it's per image, not just blanket. So, for example, if I wanted to opt out my best sellers and vectors I could.

I just can't fathom why they want to go this route and how they think they can expand the volume - more customers or more volume from the existing customers - to make this something other than a discount.

IMO, the other mixed model sites have not been a success. Subscriptions have not reached SS levels at any of the mixed model sites. DT has the small incentive in that the image level can go up as a result of the low price  (21-30 cent) subscription sales.

I also wonder what effect this will have on the SS commission increase? Does this mean SS has less reason to give us more as the other sites are all piling on the discounted sales? I certainly hope not.

Yuck, yuck, yuck...

I'm definitely against subscription, could be good for istock, could be good for buyers but cant be good for contributors.

I think photographers at IS are about to get screwed, and I said so in the thread. I went exclusive at IS because I thought it was the better model for photographers. If they actually go through with this I'll probably drop exclusivity because it won't be worth crap.

It all started when they went to the net sales/commission model. That allowed them to experiment with screwing photographers more and more while still keeping up sales and therefore widening margins. This is just another step in the process.

Not to mention this new change drastically lowers the value of being exclusive! I'm pissed, and I don't even consider microstock a real source of income (though did include on my 1040). I can't imagine what exclusives that depend on iStock income must be feeling.