Author Topic: Moving iStock Forward - September 2, 2014. contributor newsletter (Read 41580 times)

bunhill · « **Reply #175 on:** September 04, 2014, 08:22 »

Quote from: cobalt on September 04, 2014, 08:05

They could have easily given the customers 3 months to prepare for the changes or "upgrade" them to the new system when they buy new credits.

That is what computers are for. You can do more than just show different currencies.

Given how helpful customer support can be, it would not surprise if the handful of customers who would likely be affected by your concerns find an easy solution to any issues.

Given that today this would likely relate to relatively few users - that would surely be the more sensible solution. Rather than implementing some kind of transitional code fix. You are talking about those few people who would be sitting on a small credit pack and who intended to use it for web sized Essential Collection images only.

cobalt · « **Reply #176 on:** September 04, 2014, 09:05 »

I always thought by far the biggest market in the world of image usage are the small to medium sized businesses in the world. There are millions and millions of the them.

But it looks like istock has given up on them and is, just like Getty, clearly focussing on corporations.

Maybe that is the best solution for them, who knows. It is the market Getty understands really well.

The mass market will be targeted by others.

For the indies the changes might be positive, at least until they come up with a brilliant new plan next September.

bunhill · « **Reply #177 on:** September 04, 2014, 09:14 »

Quote from: cobalt on September 04, 2014, 09:05

I always thought by far the biggest market in the world of image usage are the small to medium sized businesses in the world. But it looks like istock has given up on them.

Most of their images at most sizes are going to be less costly. The pricing is broadly similar to Shutterstock pricing but with a better selection of content. The minimum spend is less than at Shutterstock. Their subscription plans are at a lower entry price point than Shutterstock.

What specifically makes you say that they have given up on small to medium sized businesses ?

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #178 on:** September 04, 2014, 09:23 »

Quote from: EmberMike on September 03, 2014, 22:00

Quote from: stock-will-eat-itself on September 03, 2014, 19:32
Smart move by iStock, nice and simple pricing...

Is it? For who? If I'm a buyer, this looks confusing still. Credits don't cost $1 (haven't for a while now), so it was never really simple at iStock. But now they cost between $8 and $15.

Not really if I want a single image from the main collection it will cost between $8 and $15 for any size, if I want a Vetta quality image it will cost between $24 and $45 for any size image. All images of all quality are well within reach for my clients, which makes my job as a designer a lot easier.

When Vetta was introduced prices were around $50 for XXXL, they sold like hot cakes, I always thought this was the sweet spot for these kind of images and it's when I earned the most money at iStock.

A higher end collection is what SS and the other micros lack, designers want to cut through the dross and clients won't mind paying at these prices.

If they scrap the RC levels and start attracting the pro indy contributors over they might find their mojo again.

EmberMike · « **Reply #179 on:** September 04, 2014, 09:26 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 03, 2014, 13:03

Or you could look at it like a nonexclusive image costs $31 for a cash sale now but will be $15 in two weeks. That moves the price down to surprise, surprise almost exactly what SS is selling them for. It's not really hard to see what pricing pressure from that other agency is doing.

Pricing pressure? You forget who came up with this pricing. iStock used to sell large images for around $10-15. And they did it back when SS wasn't even selling single images of image packs, just subscriptions. If anything, SS responded to pressure from customers to offer something like what iStock offered. iStock just took it and ran with it up to a high-priced level that exceeded what customers wanted to spend.

So now iStock has to come back down to earth, and that's because of SS? Absolutely wrong.

cobalt · « **Reply #180 on:** September 04, 2014, 09:28 »

Dropping the price by size is a change in business model. istock is not SS, the customers who buy there do it for a reason.

The customer will have choices abruptly removed from them with 2 weeks notice.

Maybe the customers don´t care. But I know I would care. After all you buy the credits with a certain volume of files in mind.

And the small sizes are the most useful. When would I need more than an s or medium in most of my work...flyers, online web use, power point presentations, print ads in newspapers?

How many times did I as a contributor sell XL or more sizes??? Hardly ever...and I am not seeing an increase in sales in that file size over the years.

And I am indie, my files are dirtcheap.

So looking at my sales profile and over 60 000 downloads, it looks like sizes up to M are the most useful.

This usage is typical for the small to medium sized business. Only for trade shows would you need superlarge files to make posters or trade show banners. Or maybe if you want to decorate your building or print something on your truck.

This is just a huge price increase sugar coated with marketing talk about all sizes being available for the same price.

Again, for me personally it is not a problem.

istock had a great advantage over SS, but they never really expanded on what they are good at. Now they seem to copy the SS price model without having the real advantages of SS - a supersmart search engine, a beautiful and fast website and just amazing workflow experience for both customers and artists.

But who knows, maybe they will seee a huge increase in money and the artists will all go exclusive again with istock.

However, if I was a normal customer I would prefer to work with a company that gives me a reliable buying experience.Unpredictable changes are poison in business.

For Fotolia, dreamstime, deposit,pond5 and everyone else that offers size based buying this is a great opportunity to pick up disappointed istock customers. For SS it will probably be neutral, I doubt many people will give up their SS plan for what istock offers now. SS is tested and reliable, why change?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #181 on:** September 04, 2014, 09:52 »

Quote from: bunhill on September 04, 2014, 09:14

Quote from: cobalt on September 04, 2014, 09:05
I always thought by far the biggest market in the world of image usage are the small to medium sized businesses in the world. But it looks like istock has given up on them.

Most of their images at most sizes are going to be less costly. The pricing is broadly similar to Shutterstock pricing but with a better selection of content. The minimum spend is less than at Shutterstock. Their subscription plans are at a lower entry price point than Shutterstock.

What specifically makes you say that they have given up on small to medium sized businesses ?

I guess you mean most exclusive images. As I said earlier, people buying my images will on average pay two or three times more than they do at present per dl.

Valo · « **Reply #182 on:** September 04, 2014, 10:07 »

Quote from: BoBoBolinski on September 04, 2014, 07:19

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 04, 2014, 06:32
Poorly received by suppliers AND buyers. Awesome. $:-\$

Well, let's be fair. 13 people of unknown provenance like it, 6 buyers don't. Hardly the sky falling in.

Those 6 buyers got 23 likes, so 29 people dont like it. Not the sky falling, but it does paint a picture.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #183 on:** September 04, 2014, 10:45 »

I think the biggest problem iStock will have with their new arrangement is that there will be two collections of images, one three times more expensive than the other, with no really obvious (visual) reason why the expensive ones are expensive.

As I understand it, some exclusive content will be in Essentials, so having things that are only on iStock isn't the reason items cost more.

Given the Getty dumps into Vetta and signature - some of which is truly rubbish (http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/close-up-of-orange-slice-25406418?st=288a235) - there will be a lot of the higher price stuff that just defies logic from a buyer perspective.

Until they address that (and it's hard to see how they can without upsetting exclusives or Getty), I don't see how buyers will find shopping at iStock appealing.

This makes the problems for users of small size images - that their costs just jumped way up - real but secondary IMO. Ditto for the people with existing credits and plans for how they were going to use them that are now upset because of the short notice over the change.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #184 on:** September 04, 2014, 11:18 »

Quote from: EmberMike on September 04, 2014, 09:26

[ iStock just took it and ran with it up to a high-priced level that exceeded what customers wanted to spend.

So now iStock has to come back down to earth, and that's because of SS? Absolutely wrong.

All this matters little when the people who control the amounts paid to us, seem wholly reluctant to share, in an equitable manner, the money collected on the sale of OUR WORK!!!!!

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #185 on:** September 04, 2014, 11:21 »

I don't understand why people are freaking out about the prices.

Designers don't pay for the images, clients do. The vast majority of clients will be comfortable with the prices, they'll be able to buy plenty of good images on a modest of budget.

If clients are that penny pinching they'll be shopping at the Dollar Photo Club anyways, if they're a volume buyer they'll switch to subs.

It all hangs on the curation and search results from here on in.

Pixart · « **Reply #186 on:** September 04, 2014, 11:59 »

2 weeks notice to their customers is extremely unfair. Try to get more money out of the budget in September... imagine the kid in charge of social media who buys a huge credits pack in January promising it will last till next budget season and kapow.... his remaining 100 blog images have turned into 20. I knew Istock does not care about contributors, but this is just a terrible way to treat their small customers. But their big customers are likely jumping for joy.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #187 on:** September 04, 2014, 12:23 »

Quote from: Pixart on September 04, 2014, 11:59

2 weeks notice to their customers is extremely unfair. Try to get more money out of the budget in September... imagine the kid in charge of social media who buys a huge credits pack in January promising it will last till next budget season and kapow.... his remaining 100 blog images have turned into 20. I knew Istock does not care about contributors, but this is just a terrible way to treat their small customers. But their big customers are likely jumping for joy.

The blogger kid can always get his remaining 100 images, and all future ones, free from Getty.

I agree with you about 2 weeks notice being ridiculous.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #188 on:** September 04, 2014, 12:28 »

Here, I whipped this up as an illustration: http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/04/istockphoto-change-illustration/

tickstock · « **Reply #189 on:** September 04, 2014, 12:34 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 04, 2014, 12:28

Here, I whipped this up as an illustration: http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/04/istockphoto-change-illustration/

Looks like it's not working on the contributor side.
ETA: Never mind you need a decimal before the royalty percent.

Also do you know that 'new' RCs will count as 5 'old' ones?

ETA: Vetta percentages are wrong.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #190 on:** September 04, 2014, 12:36 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 04, 2014, 12:28

Here, I whipped this up as an illustration: http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/04/istockphoto-change-illustration/

Great tool. Thanks! Looks like an improvement for indies. I usually average around .80 per download on Istock, but now I will average around 2.50. They could always offset any gains by knocking indies further back in the search.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #191 on:** September 04, 2014, 12:46 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 04, 2014, 12:34

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 04, 2014, 12:28
Here, I whipped this up as an illustration: http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/04/istockphoto-change-illustration/

Looks like it's not working on the contributor side.
ETA: Never mind you need a decimal before the royalty percent.

Also do you know that 'new' RCs will count as 5 'old' ones?

ETA: Vetta percentages are wrong.

Yes, I show the new RCs as 5 and 15 respectively.

Thanks for the heads up on the Vetta. I'll see if I can fix that.

tickstock · « **Reply #192 on:** September 04, 2014, 12:47 »

I haven't read through the whole thread yet but I guess I missed them saying that.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #193 on:** September 04, 2014, 12:56 »

I fixed the Vetta.

Yes, so the RC charts, which were built on a system that included images selling for up to 170 credits, and which will not be modified, will now only have to accommodate sales of 5 and 15 credits (for images).

cobalt · « **Reply #194 on:** September 04, 2014, 14:22 »

Those customers look really unhappy. And many people are still on holiday. I wonder what will happen when the system starts and people wake up to see what happened to their credits. I doubt many people pay attention to the newsletters. And Nobody is going to expect such drastic changes.

https://www.facebook.com/istock?brandloc=DISABLE

"Thanks for the heads up. I have been a customer over 8 years and typically buy 1- and 2-credit x-small images. Now under the new system I will need to pay 5 credits per image. You should have given customers more time to use their remaining credits or allow them to be applicable toward legacy pricing before the expiration date set at the time of the credit-pack purchase. Thankfully, I only have 15 credits in my account and I’m going to bleed it dry, grabbing 9 images prior to September 13th so I won’t be reduced to an account balance of a mere 3 images. I have to imagine most of your customer are web customers in the same situation as me who pay 1 or 2 credits per x-small, web resolution image. You claim the credits will be converted at the “current value or better”, but I will lose 2/3 of my value on this conversion based on how I use stock photography. This does not make it “easier for the customer” – it’s just a way to charge more per image. We know what resolution we need and liked having the flexible pricing to purchase the appropriate size. So while it may benefit you, most customers in the same boat as me will see this as poor business practice and downright thievery."

I am so glad, I can just sit back and watch the storm without getting wet this time.

tickstock · « **Reply #195 on:** September 04, 2014, 14:32 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 04, 2014, 12:56

I fixed the Vetta.

Yes, so the RC charts, which were built on a system that included images selling for up to 170 credits, and which will not be modified, will now only have to accommodate sales of 5 and 15 credits (for images).

Your Vetta rates are still wrong. The Old system had a lower % than the New RCs. Vetta files will now get the normal %.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #196 on:** September 04, 2014, 14:40 »

Ah, dang it, you're right. I just wiped the rates with the old rates for all of them. One more time.

eta: ok, got it done.

bunhill · « **Reply #197 on:** September 04, 2014, 14:41 »

A few people blowing off steam in the comments on mYFace is all very well. That's what the internet is like. But anecdotal commentary is meaningless. Also - there can be no doubt the customer support team will be on hand to fix any serious gripes with respect to existing credits. Those customers may very well find that moving forward a subscription suits them better.

The clear reality is that Getty are going to know exactly how much of their customer base still buys small web sized images using credit packs these days - and exactly how much that business is worth against the whole.

Valo · « **Reply #198 on:** September 04, 2014, 14:47 »

Quote from: bunhill on September 04, 2014, 14:41

A few people blowing off steam in the comments on mYFace is all very well. That's what the internet is like. But anecdotal commentary is meaningless. Also - there can be no doubt the customer support team will be on hand to fix any serious gripes with respect to existing credits. Those customers may very well find that moving forward a subscription suits them better.

The clear reality is that Getty are going to know exactly how much of their customer base still buys small web sized images using credit packs these days - and exactly how much that business is worth against the whole.

I wouldn't be so sure about that bold statement. They can't even report sales in real time without making mistakes.

dirkr · « **Reply #199 on:** September 04, 2014, 16:42 »

Quote from: bunhill on September 04, 2014, 09:14

Most of their images at most sizes are going to be less costly. The pricing is broadly similar to Shutterstock pricing but with a better selection of content. The minimum spend is less than at Shutterstock. Their subscription plans are at a lower entry price point than Shutterstock.

What specifically makes you say that they have given up on small to medium sized businesses ?

That bolded statement is only true if you look for full sized images. Anyone wanting to buy smaller sizes will not be able to get it cheaper on Istock, but Shutterstock sells image packs for "small and medium jpegs". Price here in Germany (can't see any $-based pricing) is €39 for 12 images or €3.25 per image.
That's roughly half the minimum price per image on Istock in the future.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Moving iStock Forward - September 2, 2014. contributor newsletter (Read 41580 times)

bunhill

cobalt

bunhill

stock-will-eat-itself

EmberMike

cobalt

BaldricksTrousers

Valo

Jo Ann Snover

PeterChigmaroff

stock-will-eat-itself

Pixart

PixelBytes

Sean Locke Photography

tickstock

PixelBytes

Sean Locke Photography

tickstock

Sean Locke Photography

cobalt

tickstock

Sean Locke Photography

bunhill

Valo

dirkr

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors