MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: fieldsphotos on September 02, 2014, 12:15
-
Just got this in my e-mail. I haven't been following the latest iStock happenings, so this was news to me.
Moving iStock Forward - September 2, 2014
Since our launch over a decade ago, many millions of customers have made the choice to use iStock for their projects based on iStock’s unique blend of high-quality content, affordable pricing and simplicity. To further benefit customers, we have introduced many innovations over the years. These include introducing premium collections, being the first to offer new content types such as video and music and leading the industry through innovations in search and user experience. These developments created tremendous value for our customers and contributor community and led to iStock being the leading player in the microstock space, which, as you know, was invented by iStock.
As we look forward and plan for the next stage of iStock’s growth and market leadership, we are energized by a world that is increasingly visual - more customers need more content, for more projects, distributed in more ways and in more formats and on more platforms. This sets a great foundation for continued iStock growth. It also means we must adapt iStock to service these new customers, to meet the increased demand from existing customers and support the realities of new higher resolution project requirements.
The introduction of the new iStock subscription offerings in April of this year, and the corresponding support from the Getty Images sales team was a very successful step in this direction. New iStock subscriptions offer high-volume customers the ability to expand their iStock usage and to access the highest resolution file in support of their projects. The customer reception has been overwhelmingly positive and has exceeded our expectations. In only a few months, these subscriptions now represent a meaningful percentage of total iStock sales and materially increased spend-per-customer. The results also demonstrate the power of unique and exclusive content; over three quarters of all subscription sales are generated from iStock Signature offerings. The reception of our iStock subscription offerings has validated the power of something that we have long understood - customers value quality!
We are offering just one payment method: Credits
Credit pack size and pricing will be simple and clearly aligned to the number and types of files customers can download.
Credits will be revalued, making it easy for customers to see exactly how much they are paying for an image.
The value of a credit will change: 5 credits today will be equal to 1 credit after we launch. The conversion ratio for existing credit balances ensures customers receive the same or better underlying value with their new credits. Example: balance of 50 credits converts to 10 credits in the new system.
After the conversion, customer usage of the newly valued credits will be reflected in Redeemed Credits totals at 5x the number used by the customer (i.e., their historic value).
Since we will re-calculate the new credit value to the equivalent old credit value for contributor Redeemed Credits, there will be no change in redeemed credits targets or reporting.
Our collection will be divided into two quality tiers;
Signature (premium) and Essentials (standard), consistent with our subscription offerings
We will maintain a consistent 3:1 price premium for Signature to Essentials for single image purchases.
We’ve unified price points across photos, vectors and audio
1 new credit=1 Essentials image, vector or audio file
3 new credits=1 Signature image, vector or audio file
6 new credits=1 Essentials video file
18 new credits=1 Signature video file
No More Pricing by File Size
Customers will pay one price per file. They can then choose to download whichever file size best fits their project.
Simplification to two collections, two file types means:
Vetta and Signature+ will move to Signature, our premium collection for single image sales and subscription.
Main will become Essentials, our standard collection for both single image sales and subscription.
Detail by File Type:
Photos
Vetta and Signature+ move to Signature and will be included in the Signature Subscription offering.
The nomination processes will stay in place.
Accepted nominations and former Signature+ and Vetta images will retain Signature+ status and retain search prominence.
Signature+ (including x-Vetta) subscription downloads will pay at the Signature+ subscription rate.
Vetta royalty rates will no longer apply; all files will pay at standard royalty rates.
Former Vetta imagery will continue to mirror in the Vetta collection on Getty Images.
Existing and new Signature+ will be mirrored in the E+ collection on Getty images.
Videos
Vetta will be moved into the Signature collection.
Vetta royalty rates will no longer apply; all files will pay at standard royalty rates.
Former Vetta video clips will continue to mirror in the Vetta Video collection on Getty Images.
Exclusive video will continue to be mirrored on Getty Images in the renamed; Creatas Video collection on Getty Images (previously iStock Footage).
Vectors
Vetta will be moved into the Signature collection.
Vetta royalty rates will no longer apply, all files will pay at standard royalty rates.
All existing and new exclusive vectors, including former Vetta, will continue to be mirrored on Getty images in the renamed; Digital Vision Vectors collection (previously iStock Vectors).
Audio
Exclusive audio tracks will remain in the Signature collection.
Exclusive sound effects and basic complexity loops will move to the Essentials Collection to remain competitively priced in the market.
All non-exclusive audio files will remain in the Essentials collection.
In total, these changes dramatically improve the simplicity of the iStock site, search and messaging. At the same time, they significantly improve customer value and transparency while maintaining iStock’s unique value of exclusive content across all file types. When combined with your great content, cross-merchandising from Getty Images and support from Getty Images global sales team, we are confident these changes will continue to set iStock apart from its competition for the years to come.
We’ve prepared a discussion thread in the iStock forums, but we would also like you to take a look at a statement from Brad Ralph(braddy - Senior Director, Content Development and co-founder of iStock).
Contact Info | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2014 iStockphoto LP. All rights reserved. iStockphoto®, iStock®, iStockaudio®, iStockvideo®, iStockalypse™, Vetta® and CopySpace® are trademarks of iStockphoto LP. All other marks are the property of their respective owners.
-
Evething for 1 Dollar?
This sounds familiar... :-\
-
"No More Pricing by File Size"
Woah!
-
Evething for 1 Dollar?
This sounds familiar... :-\
Doesn't it say one new credit is 5 old credits?
-
It's simpler. We just have to decipher what it all means. ;)
-
simple - more money for them, less for us.
The question is what sort of smoke and mirrors they have used to get to this result.
-
I'm a vector guy. I don't know if was a good or bad move. Any thoughts?
-
It means that non-exclusive vectors currently sold for 15 or 12 credits will be all sold for only 5 credits (1 new credit). So our files will be devaluated. Great, amazing, just what I needed... :'(
-
It means that non-exclusive vectors currently sold for 15 or 12 credits will be all sold for only 5 credits (1 new credit). So our files will be devaluated. Great, amazing, just what I needed... :'(
But it sounds like credits are going up in price x5.
-
iStock ......... simplicity
(http://i.imgur.com/UjpkrNx.png)(http://i.imgur.com/UjpkrNx.png)(http://i.imgur.com/UjpkrNx.png)
-
It means that non-exclusive vectors currently sold for 15 or 12 credits will be all sold for only 5 credits (1 new credit). So our files will be devaluated. Great, amazing, just what I needed... :'(
But it sounds like credits are going up in price x5.
I hope so. At the very least 5x. If not, I will have to apply Plan B in emergency mode.
-
Once again it sounds like they're grasping at straws and rejiggering everything without testing how it will be received, which only puts customers and contributors off.
-
1 Essential image in any size = 1 new Credit = 5 old Credits = 0,75$ for the photographer (at 15%)
-
This comment from IS paints the picture:
"Yep. I bet you're looking forward to getting a (slightly) higher percentage of the 15 credits (3 'new' credits) a Vetta image will cost - instead of the lower percentage of the 45 to 170 credits it costs now."
-
Glad I've deleted my port when the getty made it free.
-
And their next announcement will be that iStock has the highest price per credit of all industry and they have to reduce it to stay competitive. With time the new credits will be even cheaper than today's credits.
-
So, is this Yuri's Big Idea for saving Midstock on iStock, while "project managing the develpment team"?
"We are working on a set of core site improvements that will dramatically improve user experience and ultimately sales. Only thing that I can say now: Give IS three months and see the changes for yourself." (June 3rd)
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/can-istock-turn-midstock-sales-around/msg382833/#msg382833 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/can-istock-turn-midstock-sales-around/msg382833/#msg382833)
I've only just come in to this (didn't get the email, but saw the link on a Fb group), so haven't digested it yet.
Seems I was wrong about one thing - it seems they are grandfathering in rates: "we can confirm that we will lock your royalty rates at the end of the year, ensuring your royalty does not decline in 2015. The rate you are earning now is the rate you will keep in 2015. If you achieve your target to move up based on 2014 RC targets, you will be locked in at the higher rate. "
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040400 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040400)
I have to say, they're going to have great difficulty selling the price tiers as "two 'quality' tiers" - although some recent acceptances have been 'questionable', no one can argue that all exclusive files are better than all indie files, however one defines 'better'.
-
This means more or less money for indies? They are getting rid of their existing subs plan where we make only .28 and instead we will make .75 to 1.00 depending on rc rank?
Also I wonder if we will get stats in real time like every other site provides or we will now have to wait for the middle of the next month to know what we made for every sale?
-
I can hear the champagne corks popping at Shutterstock headquarters from here.
-
It means that non-exclusive vectors currently sold for 15 or 12 credits will be all sold for only 5 credits (1 new credit). So our files will be devaluated. Great, amazing, just what I needed... :'(
That seems like the case, so it will be a pretty big price cut. Seems kind of stupid because I doubt they will make more money with this. Price cuts don't really create more volume anymore with credit sales. That's what subs are for.
-
"No More Pricing by File Size"
Woah!
Sean, this is the real bomb shell of the whole letter, which contains more than a small amount of shrapnel.
-
I love (sarcasm here) the idea of the NEW CREDIT. My eyes are hurting from the smoke.
-
I love (sarcasm here) the idea of the NEW CREDIT. My eyes are hurting from the smoke.
New credit = new speak?
-
Why are they even keeping up with the whole notion of "credits"? It's obviously just a big pain anymore, the way they slide through deals and change pricing and everything.
-
This looks like typical iSpeak. If I've read the whole email through once and the details aren't clear then I know whatever it means it isn't good for me.
-
Just .... wow
::)
-
Income AT IS was so low in Aug . that I think any lower will put them in the bottom tier.
-
Wow ! I'm glad to have quit exclusivity now ! Seems nothing good for contributor. I don't like the one price for every size thing. And I'm sure custtomer won't like it either. I guess buyers of small size will leave.
-
For non exclusive photographers who sells mostly small to medium size photos and also illustrators with simple, basic vectors which are rated 1 credit this doesnt looks like very bad news. But for complex vector illustrator and also photographers who invested in gear to be able to sell XL, XXL photos it definitely looks like one more bad news.
-
For non exclusive photographers who sells mostly small to medium size photos and also illustrators with simple, basic vectors which are rated 1 credit this doesnt looks like very bad news. But for complex vector illustrator and also photographers who invested in gear to be able to sell XL, XXL photos it definitely looks like one more bad news.
This will encourage those photogs who shoot XXL and above files to go indie because size still matters on sites like DT and FT.
-
I don't like the one price for every size thing.
That's actually the only part that is interesting (maybe positive?), although they (and others) have sold vectors that way for a while.
-
I wouldn't mind selling all sizes for the same price.
But 5$ and 15%?
Make that 20$ and 50%, and I'll re-upload my port to IS...
-
If i will earn less for each download i will stop uploading images.
-
Actually iStock is moving backward not forward:
1. As expected they brought back the old 2 tier collections model: exclusive and non-exclusive
2. As expected they are throwing away / locking the RC system by the end of this year
3. The next expected step will be the removal of Thinkstock
-
Seems I was wrong about one thing - it seems they are grandfathering in rates: "we can confirm that we will lock your royalty rates at the end of the year, ensuring your royalty does not decline in 2015. The rate you are earning now is the rate you will keep in 2015. If you achieve your target to move up based on 2014 RC targets, you will be locked in at the higher rate. "
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040400[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040400[/url])
It was long expected they will drop the RC system.
They call it "locking RC current level"
-
I can hear the champagne corks popping at Shutterstock headquarters from here.
why the +9 for SS cork-popping? the more monopoly for SS the more they will continue to pull
their shenanigans on contributors.
be careful what u wish for? 8)
-
I'm quite clever but as usual with IStock's communications I'll probably have to read it three times to understand it fully. They sound quite pleased with themselves though - and no doubt pranced out of the launch meeting convinced these measures will propel them into a glorious future. Always a bad sign.
Happy to be independent and on 10 megapixels.
-
I guess now is a good time to buy SS shares...there is so much that is fundamentally wrong with this "plan", I won´t even go into it.
But it is no longer my concern and as an indie I am not going to be strongly affected. Maybe I will even benefit a little.
So sorry for all the exclusives. At least they kept the royalty rates.
SS is certainly loading up on champagne, so will many other agencies.
It is September on istock...but for now the site still works, right?
-
I can hear the champagne corks popping at Shutterstock headquarters from here.
why the +9 for SS cork-popping? the more monopoly for SS the more they will continue to pull
their shenanigans on contributors.
be careful what u wish for? 8)
I wish for nothing but success for everyone. I'd rather not have a monopoly. But iStock continues to amaze me with their capacity to shoot themselves in the foot. Just once I wish they'd announce something that was tested, proven, and good for contributors, but I'm disappointed every time. I was simply making an observation...the folks from SS who read these threads must be laughing themselves silly over this "simple" announcement from their biggest competitor.
-
It was not announced on a Friday and admins seem to be around to answer questions. I guess this is a step forward...
I really wonder what the high end video people will do. SS and pond5 are so much ahead of istock in video already...and now this...
-
At least they kept the royalty rates.
Well, not exactly - They will lock the RC level you will achieve by the end of this year:
"Yes- we can confirm that we will lock your royalty rates at the end of the year, ensuring your royalty does not decline in 2015.
If you achieve your target to move up based on 2014 RC targets, you will be locked in at the higher rate."
Looks like by the end of this year I will go down one level and then they will lock me there forever. :'(
-
I haven't seen anyone mention this yet here... it addresses how much credits will actually cost... until we know this, all we can do is guess how we'll be affected: (copied from the forum on iS)
When will these changes go live on the website?
We are planning a September 15th launch but changes may start to appear as early as September 13th. The site will require a limited weekend outage but you will be notified in advance.
How and when will you communicate these changes to customers?
Given impact on existing credit values, we will start communicating changes on September 3rd. Marketing will reflect the changes coinciding with the launch on September 15th.
Pricing
Exactly how will credit pack and extended license pricing change?
Due to competitive sensitivity, we are not releasing credit pack and extended license pricing specifics at this time. New pricing will be announced with the launch in September.
-
So all those 28c credit subs for indes will go up to 75c- $1 sales? All the standard iS sales will be the same price as credit subs - is that right? In my case I made about 90c per dl last month (ignoring an EL - I presume they will still be sold at premium prices, though they aren't mentioned). As I'm on 17% I should get 85c on average under the new system. If all the credit subs jump from 28c to 85c then it will be overall positive for me (ignoring the shift in sales patterns that is inevitably going to happen as collections coalesce).
What about TS, though? Is that still going to be paying the same or are TS buyers going to be funnelled back to iStock?
-
So all those 28c credit subs for indes will go up to 75c- $1 sales?
where did you read it?
-
Knowing that size doesn't matter makes me kinda happy. ;)
-
I am guessing that the price for credits will drop - (so one new credit will cost less than 5 old credits). The reason they don't want to mention this now is they don't want people to wait for the price drop - they hope some suckers will buy old credits at a premium price.
Since I seem to mostly sell s and xs now, this might actually benefit me slightly, but since most of my content has been removed from the greedy @#%$s it won't make much difference and it certainly isn't the sort of announcement that gets me to consider thinking about uploading there again.
-
So all those 28c credit subs for indes will go up to 75c- $1 sales?
where did you read it?
There's a questionmark after it. They talk about what a success the credit subs have been and then launch into a spiel about how there will only be credit prices from now on and only two tiers of photos. It's not clear but it suggests to me they might be increasing (or scrapping? but they say it's doing brilliantly) the credit subs prices.
Seems we won't be getting any more for credit subs
From iStock's forum FAQs: "Will the price of image subscriptions change with this initiative?
No, while pricing is always subject to change, there are currently no plans to change subscription prices. Our Essentials and Signature subscription offerings are performing very well and well-positioned to competitive offers."
-
I can hear the champagne corks popping at Shutterstock headquarters from here.
Interesting that so many people have voted your post up. I think that must be more to do with sentiment than careful analysis. Since nobody knows the outcome.
Hands up - I am iStock exclusive ! Though at this point I am completely neutral being 8 months into a completely different thing. And I always was. I am more curious than concerned about iS at this point. Though FWIW I have been personally around photo agencies since 1989 - and the friends and family since the 60s. And iStock is just a bit of what Getty does and how it works.
If I was an SS stock holder; as an investor I would be worried about them being seriously under diversified. What else do they actually do which justifies their price in a market for cheap pictures which is moving towards free.
Maybe it wasn't champagne corks you heard :)
-
Sean has some examples with dollars of what it all means...
http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/02/istockphoto-shuffle/ (http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/02/istockphoto-shuffle/)
-
Basically the change means buyers get more value for less. Meaning contributors get paid less for more value.
-
Here is Michael´s summary, pointing out all the brilliance in the new plan!! I am sure SS managers are getting desperate...not..
http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/agency-news/six-steps-to-turn-a-failing-business-into-a-successful-model/ (http://www.michaeljayfoto.com/agency-news/six-steps-to-turn-a-failing-business-into-a-successful-model/)
-
At least they kept the royalty rates.
Well, not exactly - They will lock the RC level you will achieve by the end of this year:
"Yes- we can confirm that we will lock your royalty rates at the end of the year, ensuring your royalty does not decline in 2015.
If you achieve your target to move up based on 2014 RC targets, you will be locked in at the higher rate."
Looks like by the end of this year I will go down one level and then they will lock me there forever. :'(
Why would you expect to go down a level?
"we will lock your royalty rates at the end of the year, ensuring your royalty does not decline in 2015"
Of course, just about everything they say can be interpreted in at least two ways, but that says to me that everyone will stay at their current rate, other than those who reach the next target up, who will get a higher rate.
-
There is no way anyone will reach the next level since all images now go for 5 or 15 (old) credits, and the RC system/levels was/were built for sales up to 100+ credits.
-
Sean has some examples with dollars of what it all means...
[url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/02/istockphoto-shuffle/[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/02/istockphoto-shuffle/[/url])
Interesting breakdown. It really doesn't look too bad for non-exclusive photographers. Everyone else gets totally hosed though.
-
There is no way anyone will reach the next level since all images now go for 5 or 15 (old) credits, and the RC system/levels was/were built for sales up to 100+ credits.
I'm sure there will be very few, but there were a few people posting while RCs weren't showing, saying they had reached their new target and were worried that their %age wasn't going to rise. They were assured that the RCs would be restored and that their %age would be backdated. The first happened, I haven't heard about the second.
-
I can hear the champagne corks popping at Shutterstock headquarters from here.
Interesting that so many people have voted your post up. I think that must be more to do with sentiment than careful analysis. Since nobody knows the outcome.
Hands up - I am iStock exclusive ! Though at this point I am completely neutral being 8 months into a completely different thing. And I always was. I am more curious than concerned about iS at this point. Though FWIW I have been personally around photo agencies since 1989 - and the friends and family since the 60s. And iStock is just a bit of what Getty does and how it works.
If I was an SS stock holder; as an investor I would be worried about them being seriously under diversified. What else do they actually do which justifies their price in a market for cheap pictures which is moving towards free.
Maybe it wasn't champagne corks you heard :)
True, nobody knows the outcome. But unless this new pricing structure miraculously pulls in a lot more sales, I foresee my earnings dropping like a stone. All my 12, 15 and 20-credit vectors will now sell for five credits. Their subs cannabilized my regular sales, so my earnings dropped like a stone when they were introduced. So I foresee my earnings dropping for the second time this year. I hope that's not the case, but I strongly suspect it will be.
The reason I don't think it will pull in more sales is because they continually rejigger the site, the credits, the levels, the searches, rename everything, etc. if I were a buyer I'd be so frustrated with the constant changes I'd avoid them.
-
It was long expected they will drop the RC system.
They call it "locking RC current level"
They have locked it every year since it started, IIRC, inasmuch as no-one dropped a tier, but some rose.
-
I can hear the champagne corks popping at Shutterstock headquarters from here.
Interesting that so many people have voted your post up. I think that must be more to do with sentiment than careful analysis. Since nobody knows the outcome.
Hands up - I am iStock exclusive ! Though at this point I am completely neutral being 8 months into a completely different thing. And I always was. I am more curious than concerned about iS at this point. Though FWIW I have been personally around photo agencies since 1989 - and the friends and family since the 60s. And iStock is just a bit of what Getty does and how it works.
If I was an SS stock holder; as an investor I would be worried about them being seriously under diversified. What else do they actually do which justifies their price in a market for cheap pictures which is moving towards free.
Maybe it wasn't champagne corks you heard :)
as Shelma clarified it isn't so much as cheering for SS than booing IS.
still, i think it is cutting one's own throat to cut IS as much as you hate them
because as i said before, so many +'s for SS
even when u read at their forum and here about how they robotically manipulate earnings
and not to mention, their enmasse rejections inconsistency. all of which still needs to be
transparent.
before all this shenanigans as one commentor adeptly calls it, i would cheer for SS
unequivocally. in fact, when i see the old SS before they went public, (no mysterious switch-flipping;
no robot reviewers; ... (you fill in the rest here)...
i will be the first one to lead the anti-IS brigade. but for now, i hate to think of letting
SS lead even further..
with who else to take IS place as the main contender??? Fotolia ? lol dollar club..
Dreamstime? hell, sleepily comatose since they started similars banning and facebook liking.
don't hate IS so much that u cut your own throat of what's to come after SS AGM2014.
-
New credits will be more than $2? Hell, they've got to cost more than $5, otherwise everyone holding old credits is boned.
Why would that one contributor think they'll be $1? That's even less than now plus it's five times the 'value'.
-
Well seeing as there is nothing from iS communique that means a dayum I think best to cease uploading until Sept. 15th
Then see what happens.
If it's a rate cut then that's it I'm sick of being effed around by the whole iS/FT/DP crowd.
-
New credits will be more than $2? Hell, they've got to cost more than $5, otherwise everyone holding old credits is boned.
Exactly. This is the one piece of crucial missing information.
There's a slim chance (a very slim chance) that this could be a positive thing if the new flat rate means a higher RPD.
Vetta files have been pushed down the best match search for some time now, so much so that I've been sending images that I think qualify to RM rather than have them languish unseen at iStock. On the other hand, they do seem to be much more reasonable with putting images into S+ (and therefore in E+ on Getty) than before.
Overall, sales numbers are so low that all this will make little difference to Exclusives. The era of the full time exclusive iStock photographer is over.
-
Also, though I'm no more a fan of subscriptions than any other sane photographer, I'd rather have the $0.75 and $2.50 sales from iStock than the $0.25 - $0.38 from SS.
-
Next step: free web images like getty... they want be king stock or kill stock!!
15% is my body fat percentage!
-
How about motivation to do complex vectors if now they have same price of not so elaborate ones? And, for the same price, no one buyer will choose less elaborate vectors if they can buy vetta similar files.
-
Woohoo my one photo has made $6.04 since 2013 April/May. I'm still at 16% though. Does that mean it is grandfathered into 2015?
I have been thinking about downsizing the 1+ year old part of my port and submitting there again, now that size doesn't matter it may be a good time (but the thought of attaching 100's of model releases... oy-vey). I'm sure I will feel dirty if I do it, but I'm selling subs everywhere else and they will be 1/4-1/2 as big on IS.
-
bortonia made a helpful chart to see old and new credits more easily.
https://bortonia.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/newpricetierschart-consolidated.gif
-
A good description :
"Actually I'm comparing current credits with (assumed) future credits and then applying it to royalties. The original post says 5 credits today equate to 1 credit in the future. As such 3 credits in the future roughly equates to 15 credits today. An XXXL Vetta will reduce in price from 170 of today's credits to 15 of todays credits, that is an over 90% decrease in credits per sale.
You have chosen not to publish the actual price of future credits, which is fair enough. If we assume the price per new credit is in line with the credit change over rate (i.e. 5 to 1) then the royalty calculation is correct. If the new credit price is lower than 5x the current price, then the decrease in royalties is even worse. If the new credit price is higher than 5 times the current price, then buyers lose out and when buyers lose out, contributors lose out because the buyers buy less images.
Either way, the result is the same.
High value buyers (those who buy big, high value images) win, high quality contributors (those who sell high quality images at large sizes) lose.
Low value buyers (those who buy a few small images occasionally) lose, low quality, high volume contributors win.
iStock is not valuing contributors who contribute high quality images, they're the biggest losers."
-
How about motivation to do complex vectors if now they have same price of not so elaborate ones? And, for the same price, no one buyer will choose less elaborate vectors if they can buy vetta similar files.
They are basically decreasing my prices/royalties by more than half. At this point, I'm not really worried about my motivation to produce files of any complexity for them. Apparently, they aren't either. ;)
-
SS is the leader for a reason, and that's why they will be celebrating, even though the forum trolls here, want to turn the IS announcement into another "why I hate SS" hijack. Fact is, this is just one more lame attempt to close the door after the customers are out of the agency. Lets stick with the OP and the IS announcement please?
More positive: Didn't someone here predict that it was Sept. soon and IS would be making some bonehead new move. Sue or Shelma? (if it was someone else, you're a psychic marvel) Congratulations on the prediction.
I was looking for the We're Excited part, which is a usual corporate speak for nudge, nudge, this is supposed to be good, leading us on. Instead up near the top we have "we are energized" Ooh Ooh, we are energized. (like that little bunny maybe?)
Let me explain the first change. RCs were futility so IS is making them irrelevant and twisting the numbers once again, to lock them where they are. Next year, we'll find that RCs (as an exciting and energizing announcement to benefit us) Have been eliminated. Until then it's probably going to be impossible to climb at all.
I loved the dropping Vetta and S+ into Sig. to make things better for buyers. Really? Didn't IS create about five types/classes of images, added TS and Subs, which made things impossible for buyers to understand. Now it's an improvement, without admitting, they screwed the system up so bad, it had to be changed back. :)
Oh but wait, what was higher priced if it's non-exclusive, will now be the same as base level. If you had high quality images and were not exclusive, you just got dumped again. If it was Vetta or S+ they had to pay us more. That and the new improved re-valued credits. Main is now Essentials for singles and subs. Why, this is like three card monty!
Read it:
Vetta and Signature+ will move to Signature, our premium collection for single image sales and subscription.
Main will become Essentials, our standard collection for both single image sales and subscription.
Getty exclusive sound effects are dropped down to base level credit files. The commissions for Getty DLs was already mush less than the same files downloaded on IS. Glad I went exclusive and got that pay cut? Now they are cutting the cut, even more? Amazing!
Only thing I think they announced that makes sense is, selling files for content, not size. The whole size thing was odd to start with. It was a Microstock affectation. Not only that, most of the time, buyers took the smallest size possible, for the lowest price, and we got the lowest commission for the lowest amount.
Raise the price to reflect the value of the image, and I'm hoping we'll make a little more? I'm energized with that thought. 8) Maybe they could drop XS at the same time? We won't be seeing anyone taking the tiny files anymore, when they can get something reasonable for the same price.
I can hear the champagne corks popping at Shutterstock headquarters from here.
True, nobody knows the outcome. But unless this new pricing structure miraculously pulls in a lot more sales, I foresee my earnings dropping like a stone. All my 12, 15 and 20-credit vectors will now sell for five credits. Their subs cannabilized my regular sales, so my earnings dropped like a stone when they were introduced. So I foresee my earnings dropping for the second time this year. I hope that's not the case, but I strongly suspect it will be.
The reason I don't think it will pull in more sales is because they continually rejigger the site, the credits, the levels, the searches, rename everything, etc. if I were a buyer I'd be so frustrated with the constant changes I'd avoid them.
If you'll please allow me to just highlight and agree above? Seven Times!
I hope this will turn things around for IS and everyone who has stuck with them. I have doubts that it will change anything.
-
More positive: Didn't someone here predict that it was Sept. soon and IS would be making some bonehead new move. Sue or Shelma? (if it was someone else, you're a psychic marvel) Congratulations on the prediction.
Actually, it was Yuri, reported on 3rd June:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/can-istock-turn-midstock-sales-around/msg382833/#msg382833 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/can-istock-turn-midstock-sales-around/msg382833/#msg382833)
-
"The September of pain and drama" is unfortunately a well known istock ritual. There have been so many "exciting" announcements over the years that didn´t work and wrecked the site because the software wasn´t tested/ready/capable in the most important buying season. All the exciting announcements just bring frustration for customers and contributors who then take their business to a more calmly managed place. That doesn´t have to be SS, there are many other stock sites that run their business quietly and without abrupt changes.
I think part of the problem is that over the years dissenting voices have been kicked out or encouraged to leave. If you just surround yourself with people who agree with everything you say, you can lose touch with the outside world.
But Yuri is certainly very excited about the coming changes and here is an open letter from Brad Ralph who believes in what is coming. He must be part of the team, together with Yuri, for developing the strategy if you look at his position.
http://press.gettyimages.com/the-evolution-of-istock-continues-an-open-letter-from-brad-ralph-co-founder-of-istock/ (http://press.gettyimages.com/the-evolution-of-istock-continues-an-open-letter-from-brad-ralph-co-founder-of-istock/)
I wish I could see what they see.
I´ll be happy to experience growth and positive results at istock, but the history of the last years is simply not very encouraging.
-
My view is simple. (As hard as it is), ignore all this stuff and just look at your monthly bottom line in $$$$ and make the appropriate decisions for your own situation. iS is gonna do what they are gonna do.
Having said that, I thought it is interesting that they are yet again grandfathering RC levels. That suggests that if they actually adhered to the RC system, they would expect many upset contributors, which in turn suggests that in fact many contributors are sinking.
-
...and here is an open letter from Brad Ralph who believes in what is coming. He must be part of the team, together with Yuri, for developing the strategy if you look at his position.
[url]http://press.gettyimages.com/the-evolution-of-istock-continues-an-open-letter-from-brad-ralph-co-founder-of-istock/[/url] ([url]http://press.gettyimages.com/the-evolution-of-istock-continues-an-open-letter-from-brad-ralph-co-founder-of-istock/[/url])
I wish I could see what they see.
I read that, including the part where he appears to say that they are the only site to have exclusive contributors.
Fotolia does, Dreamstime does, Envato/PhotoDune does. The only major competitor who doesn't is Shutterstock. I think it's more than just an oversight, but a lack of awareness of what's going on with other agencies. I don't think they understand why Shutterstock has been successful and that their new model won't have much appeal to a buyer considering IS vs. SS
-
depositphotos also has exclusivity and on fotolia it is the exclusive image program that is very successful. gives both the agency and the contributor the best of both worlds, you can upload niche content (usually localized content) exclusively and the generic content everyhwere.
And Fotolia pays fully exclusive contributors up to 60%. It is a much stronger programm than the istock program in many ways. But since it is mostly a European agency I guess at this point it makes more sense for people from this side of the globe.
-
Fotolia, Dreamstime and Envato offer a higher royalty on exclusive content; as far as I know none of them ties that to a supplier-level exclusivity requirement. Envato's a little odd, since to submit exclusive content they have you create a second profile, but like the others they let you submit both exclusive content and other content that appears on other sites. iStock's the only one that requires supplier exclusivity.
-
...and here is an open letter from Brad Ralph who believes in what is coming. He must be part of the team, together with Yuri, for developing the strategy if you look at his position.
[url]http://press.gettyimages.com/the-evolution-of-istock-continues-an-open-letter-from-brad-ralph-co-founder-of-istock/[/url] ([url]http://press.gettyimages.com/the-evolution-of-istock-continues-an-open-letter-from-brad-ralph-co-founder-of-istock/[/url])
I wish I could see what they see.
I read that, including the part where he appears to say that they are the only site to have exclusive contributors.
Fotolia does, Dreamstime does, Envato/PhotoDune does. The only major competitor who doesn't is Shutterstock. I think it's more than just an oversight, but a lack of awareness of what's going on with other agencies. I don't think they understand why Shutterstock has been successful and that their new model won't have much appeal to a buyer considering IS vs. SS
If they want to brag about something, the real trick is having contributors that actually choose to give exclusive or partially exclusive content to them voluntarily (because they are that much better) and not because of some agreement. Those are the agencies that I'd love to have more of. Slashing prices and royalty rates isn't going to encourage that.
-
Sink different!
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/simplified-image-collections (http://www.istockphoto.com/simplified-image-collections)
18 (new) credit ELs
credit packs include a one credit pack (how is that not cash pricing?)
Apparently an e-mail was sent out with a link to this page - a contributor received it although it looks like it was intended for buyers.
Wouldn't this mean folks will hold off downloading any larger sizes - if they can - until after the changeover? The FAQ says you can't later download a larger size if you purchase now...
-
SS is the leader for a reason, and that's why they will be celebrating, even though the forum trolls here, want to turn the IS announcement into another "why I hate SS" hijack. Fact is, this is just one more lame attempt to close the door after the customers are out of the agency. Lets stick with the OP and the IS announcement please?
not a troll, nor a |why I hate SS | cheerleader. just a reminder that the more you troll why IS will never do anything right, u bring out the champagne for SS laughing at you for allowing their inconsistency and intransparent filling the forum with double-speak , and allowing them the continual
echelon being left without a contender.
as in any business, monopoly is unhealthy for the proliterian and opium-smokers.
-
It was long expected they will drop the RC system.
They call it "locking RC current level"
They have locked it every year since it started, IIRC, inasmuch as no-one dropped a tier, but some rose.
This is certainly not the case, most people I know, including myself, have dropped a tier. I'm sure some have dropped more.
-
I've received 3 emails about this change. The last one had a guy jumping off a concrete bridge. I assume this is symbolic of the artists jumping off exclusivity.
The changes in the last 2 years at iS are dramatic. Flip flop with no consultation or warning. Jeeps!
-
It was long expected they will drop the RC system.
They call it "locking RC current level"
They have locked it every year since it started, IIRC, inasmuch as no-one dropped a tier, but some rose.
This is certainly not the case, most people I know, including myself, have dropped a tier. I'm sure some have dropped more.
Yes but only when they introduced it. After that, everyone was grandfathered year after year. Which basically is an indication that they are paying out less royalties than they originally expected they had to...
-
It was long expected they will drop the RC system.
They call it "locking RC current level"
They have locked it every year since it started, IIRC, inasmuch as no-one dropped a tier, but some rose.
This is certainly not the case, most people I know, including myself, have dropped a tier. I'm sure some have dropped more.
Yes but only when they introduced it. After that, everyone was grandfathered year after year. Which basically is an indication that they are paying out less royalties than they originally expected they had to...
Well, it took over a year before I dropped a level, but I accept that more recently there have been no drops.
-
"With our simplified credit pricing, you’ll be able to get single images with our 1 credit pack or 3 credit pack depending on the collection."
1 credit does not make a "pack".
"Our premium Vetta Collection will be available at the lowest price ever as part of our Signature Collection."
A "collection" within a collection within a ... Look, if it's in with everything else, it doesn't exist any more. Just kill it.
"You’ll be able to add any extended license to your image for 18 credits or add one to your video clip for 21 credits."
So, they're essentially leaving money on the table by pricing everything the same, even though the value is different. Weird.
-
Frankly pushing around the credit system is not their main worry. Ive watched IS and have had my share of rejected photos.
The credit system is designed to reclaim left over money from drop ins that dont buy again. Its a dinosaur system that actually repels impulse buyers, which is easily 70% of the market. Who gets the money from unused credits? You'd be mistaken if you think the major feeder of IS google doesnt feed them most of their income and google dont like bad user experiences. The core membership of IS "buyers" not contributors is TINY and they dont have allegiance to IS they want the best deal.
Credit system is dead, not because microstock is getting cheaper, infact its dearer, (check out google trends for basic image searches...all up sloping trends since 2007) but this scammy credits idea is dead and buyers are leaving IS and others in droves because of it.
ITS another BARRIER to purchase that the artist, not the Stock Agency suffers a loss from
-
fotolia and deposit also have the option of being fully artist exclusive, I think dreamstime too. But they also offer a middle path of exclusive images.
For me personally full artist exclusivity is something I won't do again, but exclusive images is a very good idea.
Having good quality exclusive content was always important for istock, it really made it stand out.
The content will now of course still be there, unless people hand in their crown, but it has become dramatically cheaper.
So the high end exclusive contributors will lose twice this autumn: loss of income because more and more buyers switch to subs plans and now the loss of income from drastically lower credit sales.
And the customers who like to buy small sizes with credits get punished too, instead of 5 small web sizes, they can just get one file in XXXXL...
I suppose this is intended to make them switch to a subscription plan.
istock is not offering the customer a reliable buying experience. I think this more than anything else, is the advantage of many other agencies.
In the end it is the bad experience we have had with all the previous exciting announcements that makes me sceptical that this time will be different.
-
Most of the sites that have tried selling at one price for all sizes have failed or have had to offer cheaper prices for smaller sizes. So I think even more buyers will leave istock now, as they never see sense and scrap a bad idea.
-
I suppose this is intended to make them switch to a subscription plan.
Good Lord!! Subscription plans...who does that benefit?? Quality microstock at cents in the dollar...
If theres no choice you take what you can get, but cents in the dollar...Id rather launch my master USB into space
-
New credits will be more than $2? Hell, they've got to cost more than $5, otherwise everyone holding old credits is boned.
Why would that one contributor think they'll be $1? That's even less than now plus it's five times the 'value'.
iS entry point is currently $19.99 for 10 credits. 10 credits buys 5 web sized Essentials images. At minimum buy those images are therefore currently appx $4 each.
Under the new system 1 credit = 1 Essential image. If the credit price is based on current Small (web sized) image pricing then a credit will be $4 - or less if you spend more. But perhaps regular web content users are the market for subs.
If credit pricing is based on Medium then a credit will cost $10. That would make the images (at minimum spend) appx the same price as Shutterstock where the minimum spend is $49 and that buys 5 JPEGs at any size.
ETA: sorry my mistake. If credit pricing is based on current Medium Essential (at minimum spend) then a credit will cost $8. (Medium Essential images are 4 credits each. 10 credits currently cost appx $20 meaning credits are $2 each).
That is less than Shutterstock where the minimum spend is $49 and that buys 5 JPEGs at any size - making them appx $10 each/
---
The lower price entry point vs SS already gives them an advantage. If credits are anything less than $10 then they will also be less expensive than SS for mostly the same (Essentials) content.
-
We have got it covered in a nutshell here http://www.mystockphoto.org/collections-prices-changes-istockphoto/ (http://www.mystockphoto.org/collections-prices-changes-istockphoto/)
-
This looks like a big kick in the teeth for the high quality images. I paid over $90 for one image a few months ago. Looks like now I could pick it up for $37. Cheaper vectors will most likely stop selling and complex vectors will be better value.
5 old credits at $2.50 = $12.50 = 1 credit pack.
15 old credits at $2.50 = $37.50 = 3 credit pack.
You can get credits cheaper if you buy in bulk. So this is roughly the top price an artist could expect a percentage of.
-
We have got it covered in a nutshell here [url]http://www.mystockphoto.org/collections-prices-changes-istockphoto/[/url] ([url]http://www.mystockphoto.org/collections-prices-changes-istockphoto/[/url])
A good and clear summary I think.
-
I recently bought 4 small images at $5 each. I only needed small version for web buttons. Now the same purchase will cost me $50 rather than $20. But I'll get giant versions to squeeze into my tiny web buttons.
-
i think this is a change in the right direction.
one price for each file size : just like any other RM agency, where's the big fuss ?
2 collections only : thanks god, it was too confusing before, and buyers don't give a sh-it about collections or even at agency name if that matters, and definitely give zero fuc-ks about photographer's name.
-
This looks like a big kick in the teeth for the high quality images.
high quality and microstock should never be in the same sentence.
it will force people shooting expensive sets to move to Getty or higher paying agencies, which is where they belong actually.
the microstock's perimeter should not invade their other business, i see the logic in this move and i agree 100%.
-
This looks like a big kick in the teeth for the high quality images.
high quality and microstock should never be in the same sentence.
it will force people shooting expensive sets to move to Getty or higher paying agencies, which is where they belong actually.
the microstock's perimeter should not invade their other business, i see the logic in this move and i agree 100%.
Thanks Hobostocker! I'll have a beer with you and the other hobos later under the bridge now that we're all poor. * those rich Getty agency photographers and their fancy sets!
-
This looks like a big kick in the teeth for the high quality images.
high quality and microstock should never be in the same sentence.
it will force people shooting expensive sets to move to Getty or higher paying agencies, which is where they belong actually.
the microstock's perimeter should not invade their other business, i see the logic in this move and i agree 100%.
This is not at all the impetus for the move.
"Unlike our competitors, iStock is committed to premium content and the exclusive contributors that produce it. Our subscription offerings and our planned a la carte pricing are dependent upon this premium content. We have no incentive to limit the exposure or revenue derived from this content. Simplifying the presentation and pricing of this content will help it better compete for customer revenues going forward and increase contributor yields."
They want to sell the premium content at low prices. It's the reverse of all the moves done in the past that were applauded that more correctly valued the content.
-
It was long expected they will drop the RC system.
They call it "locking RC current level"
They have locked it every year since it started, IIRC, inasmuch as no-one dropped a tier, but some rose.
This is certainly not the case, most people I know, including myself, have dropped a tier. I'm sure some have dropped more.
After the initial introduction?
Lots of people (including me) lost out when it was introduced because they weren't grandfathered into their next 'canister level' as originally promised, but reneged.
Also a lot of people across multiple media lost out when the media download figures were split between their media, obviously on the 'divide and conquer' principle, though they were later 'persuaded' that that meant they had to allow exclusivity by medium.
After that, AFAICR they have kept people at their existing levels each year moving on, except those fortunate enough to move up. Certainly from 2012 into '13, and from '13 into '14.
-
This looks like a big kick in the teeth for the high quality images.
high quality and microstock should never be in the same sentence.
it will force people shooting expensive sets to move to Getty or higher paying agencies, which is where they belong actually.
the microstock's perimeter should not invade their other business, i see the logic in this move and i agree 100%.
+1 except i negated the part of Getty... to maybe include ( ) whichever new site(s) ;)non-elites ;) that is brave enough to take on the ever sinking earnings set by the top tier.
really, the SS cheerdogs (oops sorry, IS never can do no right cheerteam) keep talking through both sides of their mouths. they keep asking SS for more money with their ever-lifting bar and anal
reviews of higher standards, yet they keep poo-pooing on lower standards for subs earnings...
as with here, high quality images LMAO
what is it that u really really(repeat) really want, dudes/dudas???
or do u really know???
-
They want to sell the premium content at low prices. It's the reverse of all the moves done in the past that were applauded that more correctly valued the content.
But exclusives have been complaining all over the place that they are not getting sales, so perhaps this is just recognition that the market won't pay the "correct value".
-
They want to sell the premium content at low prices. It's the reverse of all the moves done in the past that were applauded that more correctly valued the content.
But exclusives have been complaining all over the place that they are not getting sales, so perhaps this is just recognition that the market won't pay the "correct value".
Perhaps they've been seeking out the wrong market. Sales at Stocksy bear out that the right customers will pay for the right product.
-
one price for each file size : just like any other RM agency, where's the big fuss ?
Huh?
RM agencies generally price partly by size, e.g. Alamy and Getty:
(http://www.lizworld.com/RM.jpg)
And if it was a typo and you meant to say RF, again some agencies price by size, e.g. Alamy and Stocksy:
(http://www.lizworld.com/RF.jpg)
-
fotolia and deposit also have the option of being fully artist exclusive, I think dreamstime too. But they also offer a middle path of exclusive images.
For me personally full artist exclusivity is something I won't do again, but exclusive images is a very good idea.
Having good quality exclusive content was always important for istock, it really made it stand out.
The content will now of course still be there, unless people hand in their crown, but it has become dramatically cheaper.
So the high end exclusive contributors will lose twice this autumn: loss of income because more and more buyers switch to subs plans and now the loss of income from drastically lower credit sales.
And the customers who like to buy small sizes with credits get punished too, instead of 5 small web sizes, they can just get one file in XXXXL...
I suppose this is intended to make them switch to a subscription plan.
istock is not offering the customer a reliable buying experience. I think this more than anything else, is the advantage of many other agencies.
In the end it is the bad experience we have had with all the previous exciting announcements that makes me sceptical that this time will be different.
Will the current subscription plan still exist? I read their statement that all sales will be with credits to mean that the current subscription plans are dead, or at least being absorbed into this new scheme.
-
fotolia and deposit also have the option of being fully artist exclusive, I think dreamstime too. But they also offer a middle path of exclusive images.
For me personally full artist exclusivity is something I won't do again, but exclusive images is a very good idea.
Having good quality exclusive content was always important for istock, it really made it stand out.
The content will now of course still be there, unless people hand in their crown, but it has become dramatically cheaper.
So the high end exclusive contributors will lose twice this autumn: loss of income because more and more buyers switch to subs plans and now the loss of income from drastically lower credit sales.
And the customers who like to buy small sizes with credits get punished too, instead of 5 small web sizes, they can just get one file in XXXXL...
I suppose this is intended to make them switch to a subscription plan.
istock is not offering the customer a reliable buying experience. I think this more than anything else, is the advantage of many other agencies.
In the end it is the bad experience we have had with all the previous exciting announcements that makes me sceptical that this time will be different.
Will the current subscription plan still exist? I read their statement that all sales will be with credits to mean that the current subscription plans are dead, or at least being absorbed into this new scheme.
That's what I thought, then I found in the FAQ on their forum that the credit subscription programme would not be affected.
-
I think the changes by iStock seems logical. Month over month, year over year, they have been slowly losing market share to Shutterstock. Everyone can read the quarterly filings by Shutterstock, as far as I known, Shutterstock have grown every quarter since going IPO, and probably nearly every quarter pre-IPO. This is just iStock's slow march towards mirroring Shutterstock's business model.
I'm an exclusive on iStock, but I've definitely browsed on Shutterstock. There are some really amazing high quality imagery there. Which are not sold at a premium. So it doesn't make a lot of sense of iStock to have Vetta when something similar can be found at Shutterstock for a whole lot less.
This last past month of sales of August on iStock has been brutal. I've been there many years and I was kind of shocked how bad that month was. I've seen declines, but not like that. I will stay exclusive with iStock for now, because I'm not confident the grass is greener on the independent side. But as the commoditization of stock photos continues to be advance, it is only a matter of time before I drop the crown. I'll see how the sales track for Sep and Oct, then decided if I might be better off on the other side.
-
fotolia and deposit also have the option of being fully artist exclusive, I think dreamstime too. But they also offer a middle path of exclusive images.
For me personally full artist exclusivity is something I won't do again, but exclusive images is a very good idea.
Having good quality exclusive content was always important for istock, it really made it stand out.
The content will now of course still be there, unless people hand in their crown, but it has become dramatically cheaper.
So the high end exclusive contributors will lose twice this autumn: loss of income because more and more buyers switch to subs plans and now the loss of income from drastically lower credit sales.
And the customers who like to buy small sizes with credits get punished too, instead of 5 small web sizes, they can just get one file in XXXXL...
I suppose this is intended to make them switch to a subscription plan.
istock is not offering the customer a reliable buying experience. I think this more than anything else, is the advantage of many other agencies.
In the end it is the bad experience we have had with all the previous exciting announcements that makes me sceptical that this time will be different.
Will the current subscription plan still exist? I read their statement that all sales will be with credits to mean that the current subscription plans are dead, or at least being absorbed into this new scheme.
That's what I thought, then I found in the FAQ on their forum that the credit subscription programme would not be affected.
Oh lovely. So we can still enjoy those lavish .28 royalties from subs. News just keeps getting better.
Thanks for clarifying.
-
I don't think Alamy or Getty RM is priced by size.
-
Perhaps they've been seeking out the wrong market. Sales at Stocksy bear out that the right customers will pay for the right product.
I honestly give IS no more than 6 months before they realize that they are bleeding money from vectors and their higher priced content/sizes. Maybe, I'm wrong, but I think they are going to be scrambling to add tiers back to the site in a few months.
-
I honestly give IS no more than 6 months before they realize that they are bleeding money from vectors and their higher priced content/sizes. Maybe, I'm wrong, but I think they are going to be scrambling to add tiers back to the site in a few months.
That will be their next "exciting announcement!"
-
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/simplified-image-collections[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/simplified-image-collections[/url])
18 (new) credit ELs
credit packs include a one credit pack (how is that not cash pricing?)
Apparently an e-mail was sent out with a link to this page - a contributor received it although it looks like it was intended for buyers.
Wouldn't this mean folks will hold off downloading any larger sizes - if they can - until after the changeover? The FAQ says you can't later download a larger size if you purchase now...
That page is as poorly written as the email to contributors. Whoever wrote it must have had a hard time trying to explain things without being allowed to give any concrete details. As a buyer I go "huh?"
-
I think the changes by iStock seems logical. Month over month, year over year, they have been slowly losing market share to Shutterstock. Everyone can read the quarterly filings by Shutterstock, as far as I known, Shutterstock have grown every quarter since going IPO, and probably nearly every quarter pre-IPO. This is just iStock's slow march towards mirroring Shutterstock's business model.
That's the difference between iStock and Shutterstock: reactive vs. proactive. While Shutterstock now moves forward towards higher-priced options, iStock goes backwards to try to catch up.
-
As an iStock exclusive I'm mostly happy with these changes.
PRO:
1. Vetta is gone (mostly). This was * money out of the system in various ways. The quality argument no longer holds with the oversupply we have now. And the mantra "I want to get paid more for what I invested in this shoot" rings hollow.
2. S+ also gone (mostly). Same thing as above.
CON:
1. Pricing should be for Web and Print sizes, not one price fits all. I hope and expect this will be changed in the near future, once they have some feedback from buyers.
2. The distinction in pricing between Main and Signature still exists. We should have only one collection and one set of prices, but Exclusive images being clearly marked and promoted. Just as it was prior to the nonsense of the past few years.
I'm daring to be cautiously optimistic that lessons have been learned and won't be repeated. A few adjustments as suggested and iStock could be turning around "back to the future". Not as good as it was, but not so disastrous either. I hope for the best!
-
Hmm... the board software removed the word "svc king" from the post above then wouldn't let me edit.
-
They want to sell the premium content at low prices. It's the reverse of all the moves done in the past that were applauded that more correctly valued the content.
But exclusives have been complaining all over the place that they are not getting sales, so perhaps this is just recognition that the market won't pay the "correct value".
Perhaps they've been seeking out the wrong market. Sales at Stocksy bear out that the right customers will pay for the right product.
I guess stocksy is cutting out its slice which is the snooty instagram artsy look a like photos. But how long can that style last. I remember when photos on white sold like hotcakes. bruce always liked art photos over commercial sales success. Only cost him 1 billion dollars!! Istock with its original formula owned by bruce today would be like Coke. Istock/getty motivation was to sell itself twice for $2 billion then $4 billion in the process it killed off its contributors and customers. But don't say it wasn't successful in its goal.
The subs introduction slashed my income by 1/3 and sales directly went over to subs. This change will slash it again. I guess water is coming aboard the sinking ship and the high priced execs need to earn their keep. Copying others won't save them.
-
Has there been any indication how much new credits will actually cost?
-
Has there been any indication how much new credits will actually cost?
"over two dollars" and no more info until mid-Sept.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040982 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040982)
-
Has there been any indication how much new credits will actually cost?
"over two dollars" and no more info until mid-Sept.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040982[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040982[/url])
Obviously it won't be anywhere near $2, as that would equate to one of today's credits costing $.40 at the maximum.
-
Has there been any indication how much new credits will actually cost?
"over two dollars" and no more info until mid-Sept.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040982[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040982[/url])
Oh thanks Sue!
Notice in your link they state Sept 15, and in the link Joanne posted http://www.istockphoto.com/simplified-image-collections (http://www.istockphoto.com/simplified-image-collections) they say Sept 13?
-
Has there been any indication how much new credits will actually cost?
"over two dollars" and no more info until mid-Sept.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040982[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040982[/url])
They say on the buyers' page: "We arrived at the 5:1 ratio and our policy to round up in your favor because it fairly gave all customers the same or better underlying value for their existing credits." So one new credit must equal 5x the maximum price of old credits, mustn't it? Or have they found some way of fiddling round that?
-
Obviously it won't be anywhere near $2, as that would equate to one of today's credits costing $.40 at the maximum.
I will be very surprised if it is not about $8 - $10 per credit depending on the pack. My guess is $9.99 for 1 credit and about $24 for 3. 1 Medium Essential image is currently $8 if you buy the current minimum of 10 credits.
Slightly less if they want to be very competitive.
Be fun to see what other people guess.
-
Has there been any indication how much new credits will actually cost?
"over two dollars" and no more info until mid-Sept.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040982[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040982[/url])
Oh thanks Sue!
Notice in your link they state Sept 15, and in the link Joanne posted [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/simplified-image-collections[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/simplified-image-collections[/url]) they say Sept 13?
Yes, when I saw that link, I thought I'd seen Sept 13th quoted somewhere.
-
There seem to be various interpretations of what they mean by 5:1.
But in all the time I've been on iS, since Dec 2006, they do not ever make their intentions clear, and I'm as sure as I can be that it's deliberate, rather than simply not being able to attract a decent copywriter. Right from the beginning, I asked them to consider Plain English principles of writing - if those of us with more or less 'Standard' English as a first language disagree about how what they should be interpreted, it must be much more so for people for whom English is their second or third language.
I wonder how the current announcement has come over in the (presumed) translations for those in the 'community languages'.
-
Obviously it won't be anywhere near $2, as that would equate to one of today's credits costing $.40 at the maximum.
I will be very surprised if it is not about $8 - $10 per credit depending on the pack. My guess is $9.99 for 1 credit and about $24 for 3. 1 Medium Essential image is currently $8 if you buy the current minimum of 10 credits.
Slightly less if they want to be very competitive.
Be fun to see what other people guess.
But Lobo said clearly: "You're assuming 1 new credit = $1, but it will probably be closer to $2. So you need to double your numbers. We'll know the exact credit pack prices around sep 15."
So why do you think that 1 new credit will be 8-10 dollars, when he said it will be closer to 2 dollars?
-
Has there been any indication how much new credits will actually cost?
"over two dollars" and no more info until mid-Sept.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040982[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040982[/url])
They say on the buyers' page: "We arrived at the 5:1 ratio and our policy to round up in your favor because it fairly gave all customers the same or better underlying value for their existing credits." So one new credit must equal 5x the maximum price of old credits, mustn't it? Or have they found some way of fiddling round that?
Remember, credits aren't attached to actual value (aside from paying contributors). If a buyer has 10 credits that they paid $20 for, they get 2 new credits, regardless of the price. If 1 new credit "pack" is only $5, then that buyer got hosed. If 1 new credit pack is $10, then he feels ok. If 1 new credit pack is $15, then he's very smiley, since the value of his credits just went up.
Another way to do it, which would be more obvious to buyers that they are getting hosed or a better deal, is to evaluate the value of all the credits being held by a buyer and then divide by the middle price for new credits, assuming different numbers of credits cost more or less depending on a bulk discount.
ie., I am holding $150 worth of "credits". Say that is 95 legacy credits showing in my account. The median package price for credits gives a per credit price of $10. Now I hold 15 new credits. If I got the 5:1 ratio, I'd be holding 19 new credits. So, I win with 5:1.
-
But Lobo said clearly: "You're assuming 1 new credit = $1, but it will probably be closer to $2. So you need to double your numbers. We'll know the exact credit pack prices around sep 15."
So why do you think that 1 new credit will be 8-10 dollars, when he said it will be closer to 2 dollars?
No he didn't. He said it would be _more_ than $2 . Obviously, that contributor was getting confused, throwing out the number of $1, when the current price isn't even that little. So, a bone was thrown that is so far away from the actual price that it doesn't matter. If it was actually $2, all income would instantly be cut by more than half.
-
But Lobo said clearly: "You're assuming 1 new credit = $1, but it will probably be closer to $2. So you need to double your numbers. We'll know the exact credit pack prices around sep 15."
So why do you think that 1 new credit will be 8-10 dollars, when he said it will be closer to 2 dollars?
No he didn't. He said it would be _more_ than $2 . Obviously, that contributor was getting confused, throwing out the number of $1, when the current price isn't even that little. So, a bone was thrown that is so far away from the actual price that it doesn't matter. If it was actually $2, all income would instantly be cut by more than half.
I must say Im confused too by the whole thread about this on Istock forum because people are throwing various numbers and the only one who can know something should be Lobo. More than 2 could be anything, I just dont get why he mentioned 2 dollars if the actual amount should be 8-10.
-
But Lobo said clearly: "You're assuming 1 new credit = $1, but it will probably be closer to $2. So you need to double your numbers. We'll know the exact credit pack prices around sep 15."
So why do you think that 1 new credit will be 8-10 dollars, when he said it will be closer to 2 dollars?
No he didn't. He said it would be _more_ than $2 . Obviously, that contributor was getting confused, throwing out the number of $1, when the current price isn't even that little. So, a bone was thrown that is so far away from the actual price that it doesn't matter. If it was actually $2, all income would instantly be cut by more than half.
I must say Im confused too by the whole thread about this on Istock forum because people are throwing various numbers and the only one who can know something should be Lobo. More than 2 could be anything, I just dont get why he mentioned 2 dollars if the actual amount should be 8-10.
managing expectation.
-
Remember, credits aren't attached to actual value (aside from paying contributors). If a buyer has 10 credits that they paid $20 for, they get 2 new credits, regardless of the price. If 1 new credit "pack" is only $5, then that buyer got hosed. If 1 new credit pack is $10, then he feels ok. If 1 new credit pack is $15, then he's very smiley, since the value of his credits just went up.
Another way to do it, which would be more obvious to buyers that they are getting hosed or a better deal, is to evaluate the value of all the credits being held by a buyer and then divide by the middle price for new credits, assuming different numbers of credits cost more or less depending on a bulk discount.
The only correct way of looking at it IMO from the customer perspective is in terms of what you can buy for the $ spend.
10 credits @ $20 is currently worth 2 mediums + 1 small
-
Thanks Hobostocker! I'll have a beer with you and the other hobos later under the bridge now that we're all poor. * those rich Getty agency photographers and their fancy sets!
hahahaha cheers to you !
-
They want to sell the premium content at low prices. It's the reverse of all the moves done in the past that were applauded that more correctly valued the content.
it's just another price correction, there's no need to make a storm in a teapot.
what matters is if they'll be able to keep their promises : more sales due to lowered pricing and subs.
i mean, suppliers can move to greener pastures but the IS management are the ones in the sinking ship, if it all fails it's going to hurt their as-s more than it hurts my pocket.
in any case even this price correction proves once again that the whole industry has no intention of keeping the actual business model photographer-friendly in terms of revenues.
-
I'm not sure how this will pan out, but I wonder why Istock always manages to choose the worst possible moment to roll out new changes? It's right after the summer slump, sales are expected to go back up again, yet Istock will change everything around again, possibly scaring off buyers.
For me personally, most of my vectors are priced at 12 old credits, which will now be priced at 1 'new' credit (5 old credits)? That would mean less RPD for me.
On the other hand, if the vectors priced at 1 old credit are now also 1 new credit, that would mean more RPD, am I correct?
-
Evething for 1 Dollar?
This sounds familiar... :-\
Doesn't it say one new credit is 5 old credits?
I was joking, but when for almost all the other agencies 1 credit means 1 dollar or so, they will make advertising saying: 1 credit for a full size image. New customers will say: wow, this is very cheap. Than, when they go to buy credits they discover that one credit costs 8/10$. They will be veeeery happy for this and they will go to DPC were 1 credit really is 1$. They share the same Marketing management with Microsoft...
-
Lobo just clarified the credit prices:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7041654 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7041654)
"
Lobo
Forum Moderator
Posted 6 mins ago
Quote
Okay, everyone. I can officially stop using the phrase 'it will be more than $2 per credit':
Credits will range from $8 to $15 depending on the size of the credit pack the buyer purchases.
So it will be considerably higher than $2. And that is the last time I will have to type anything to do with $2 in this thread.
I appreciate this has been a frustrating aspect of the communication. We are pleased to be able to finally share this information with you."
so for me this would mean I will be getting 1.4 -2.7 dollars for my files. and 28 cents for subscription sales. that is not that different from what I am getting now. Might even be a little more. so as an indie I don´t have to be worried for photos.
-
Lobo just clarified the credit prices:
"
Lobo
Forum Moderator
Posted 6 mins ago
Quote
Okay, everyone. I can officially stop using the phrase 'it will be more than $2 per credit':
Credits will range from $8 to $15 depending on the size of the credit pack the buyer purchases.
So it will be considerably higher than $2. And that is the last time I will have to type anything to do with $2 in this thread.
I appreciate this has been a frustrating aspect of the communication. We are pleased to be able to finally share this information with you."
I just read it too, its good he clarified it and Im sorry I was confused about it or rather worried that it may be really as low as two dollars.. Finally some real numbers!
-
It´s not his fault, but was it really so difficult to give people real numbers??
However it also means my videos will be sold between 7.2 - 13.5 dollars.
That is crazy low. Really no incentive to send them work. What a pity, i would have liked to try the new upload system. Hm. Maybe I can try with some older files or things that don´t sell elsewhere. Or the testshots.
-
However it also means my videos will be sold between 7.2 - 13.5 dollars.
Essentials video clips will be 6 credits. So that means them being sold for $48 - $90 surely ?
ETA: oh - I guess you mean your royalty. What size normally sells best ?
-
I don´t have a lot of sales on istock, because of a codec bug they have I couldn´t upload in the last few months. If I do have a sale I get a mix of everything, not just hd sales.
15% for video is just too low. It should be 30% like on SS at least.
-
Wow, so at the small pack end, 5 current credits ( one new credit ) costs $10, but if you buy it in two weeks, that credit will cost $15. Wow. Hard to compare that way, tho.
-
Wow, so at the small pack end, 5 current credits ( one new credit ) costs $10, but if you buy it in two weeks, that credit will cost $15. Wow. Hard to compare that way, tho.
Also, with five current credits you could buy 2.5 small inde pictures, with 1 new credit you can buy one inde picture. It's a hell of an increase for the small buyer.
-
Wow, so at the small pack end, 5 current credits ( one new credit ) costs $10, but if you buy it in two weeks, that credit will cost $15. Wow. Hard to compare that way, tho.
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.
-
Has anyone got sales since the announcement?
I haven't seen a single sale since the announcement.
-
Has anyone got sales since the announcement?
I haven't seen a single sale since the announcement.
Yes, a smattering, but fewer than I would expect.
-
Wow, so at the small pack end, 5 current credits ( one new credit ) costs $10, but if you buy it in two weeks, that credit will cost $15. Wow. Hard to compare that way, tho.
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.
You can rake up a theoretical maximum sale price but I can't recall when I last saw that sort of sale come through. My average commission last month was 80c (on a statistically meaningful sample size) giving an average sale price of $4.70. From next month that will rise to $8-$15.
-
However it also means my videos will be sold between 7.2 - 13.5 dollars.
That is crazy low. Really no incentive to send them work. What a pity, i would have liked to try the new upload system. Hm. Maybe I can try with some older files or things that don´t sell elsewhere. Or the testshots.
That settles it then. They won't be selling my videos once the price changes go into effect. (Then again, they've hardly been selling my videos recently at all; August was my WME.)
The average commission will probably be $10, give or take, and that will now be for HD size. That is not sustainable.
-
Wow, so at the small pack end, 5 current credits ( one new credit ) costs $10, but if you buy it in two weeks, that credit will cost $15. Wow. Hard to compare that way, tho.
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.
You can rake up a theoretical maximum sale price but I can't recall when I last saw that sort of sale come through. My average commission last month was 80c (on a statistically meaningful sample size) giving an average sale price of $4.70. From next month that will rise to $8-$15.
That was the price to buy the minimum amount of images compared between SS and IS. If you just want one on iStock you pay $31 for a max sized image and on SS you have to buy 2 images for $29. I guess you probably would buy 10 credits though for $20 on iStock to get that 8 credit image. The cash pricing never really made much sense but I did get cash sales every so often.
-
Has anyone got sales since the announcement?
I haven't seen a single sale since the announcement.
I have got more then average sales on SS since the announcement.
-
I don't think Alamy or Getty RM is priced by size.
Did you actually check?
Or did you think I'd invented my screenshots?
-
I don't think Alamy or Getty RM is priced by size.
Did you actually check?
Or did you think I'd invented my screenshots?
There is a difference between end use and what size file is downloaded.
-
I don't think Alamy or Getty RM is priced by size.
Did you actually check?
Or did you think I'd invented my screenshots?
There is a difference between end use and what size file is downloaded.
In both companies, end use AND size (etc) are used to calculate price:
(http://www.lizworld.com/RM.jpg)
-
Look at the size listed under where you click for 'marketing package small business' or 'marketing package large business', the file sizes are the same (that's what you get when you license it, I think). My understanding is that the end use size is limited but you get the full sized image to work with, say to crop it, edit it, or whatever before you use it in the final project.
-
You can rake up a theoretical maximum sale price but I can't recall when I last saw that sort of sale come through. My average commission last month was 80c (on a statistically meaningful sample size) giving an average sale price of $4.70. From next month that will rise to $8-$15.
That was the price to buy the minimum amount of images compared between SS and IS. If you just want one on iStock you pay $31 for a max sized image and on SS you have to buy 2 images for $29. I guess you probably would buy 10 credits though for $20 on iStock to get that 8 credit image.
But this isn't about SS, it's about iS and the prices and commissions for customers and suppliers. If the sales don't slip further it will be fine for me because my commission earnings should more than double. Customers looking for bargain prices from inde suppliers are going to get a bit of a shock, though.
At other price points it will be different.
-
Has anyone got sales since the announcement?
I haven't seen a single sale since the announcement.
I have got more then average sales on SS since the announcement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia)
-
Lobo just clarified the credit prices:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7041654[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7041654[/url])
"
Lobo
Forum Moderator
Posted 6 mins ago
Quote
Okay, everyone. I can officially stop using the phrase 'it will be more than $2 per credit':
Credits will range from $8 to $15 depending on the size of the credit pack the buyer purchases.
So it will be considerably higher than $2. And that is the last time I will have to type anything to do with $2 in this thread.
I appreciate this has been a frustrating aspect of the communication. We are pleased to be able to finally share this information with you."
so for me this would mean I will be getting 1.4 -2.7 dollars for my files. and 28 cents for subscription sales. that is not that different from what I am getting now. Might even be a little more. so as an indie I don´t have to be worried for photos.
Yeah, that makes it a lot less crappy. I was thinking it was going to be $8, but knowing it goes up to $15 helps soften it. I wonder how many tiers of packs there are between the two.
-
with five current credits you could buy 2.5 small inde pictures, with 1 new credit you can buy one inde picture. It's a hell of an increase for the small buyer.
At first I was also wondering whether this would be an issue. But thinking about it - the only place I see those small uses these days are on articles - typically editorial uses. And those sorts of clients do not buy one or two images here and there, they have subscriptions.
-
Beautiful! Reminds me of how people saw a change at IS when the new search was announced, which hadn't gone into effect yet. Or people watching the ebb and flow of sales on other sites and claiming they have a quota or turned off the individual by time zones.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia[/url])
-
Lobo just clarified the credit prices:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7041654[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7041654[/url])
"
Lobo
Forum Moderator
Posted 6 mins ago
Quote
Okay, everyone. I can officially stop using the phrase 'it will be more than $2 per credit':
Credits will range from $8 to $15 depending on the size of the credit pack the buyer purchases.
So it will be considerably higher than $2. And that is the last time I will have to type anything to do with $2 in this thread.
I appreciate this has been a frustrating aspect of the communication. We are pleased to be able to finally share this information with you."
so for me this would mean I will be getting 1.4 -2.7 dollars for my files. and 28 cents for subscription sales. that is not that different from what I am getting now. Might even be a little more. so as an indie I don´t have to be worried for photos.
Yeah, that makes it a lot less crappy. I was thinking it was going to be $8, but knowing it goes up to $15 helps soften it. I wonder how many tiers of packs there are between the two.
Not less crappy enough. My 22-credit files sell for up to $42 right now. Just sold one yesterday.
-
Look at the size listed under where you click for 'marketing package small business' or 'marketing package large business', the file sizes are the same (that's what you get when you license it, I think). My understanding is that the end use size is limited but you get the full sized image to work with, say to crop it, edit it, or whatever before you use it in the final project.
Oh, you could be right; so technically we're both right / neither of us are wrong. The end size counts in price calculation but you get a full-sized image to make your end result. I wasn't thinking about cropping. So in a combination image the buyer would need to calculate the porportion of the end image a particular image would take up. I suppose they use the comps to finalise that.
-
So now that we know all the details, it doesn't take too much work to see how the changes will affect us.
I took the last 2 days worth of sales, and calculated the range of possible earnings based on the actual sales.
Day 1: $12.00 - $22.50, $17.25 average. Actual: $39.40.
Day 2: $16.80 - $31.50, $24.15 average. Actual: $48.93.
So, in total: $28.80 - $54.00, average $41.40, actual $88.33.
In percentage terms, I would be expected to lose 39% - 67%, with the average between those being 53%.
Yeah, this is definitely going to be a positive for me. ::)
-
If my earnings go even lower than now I will have no choice but to drop my "raster crown" go full on indi :(
-
New credits will be between $8 - $15 says lobo. I said in a previous post that based on the most expensive credit available now ($2.48) the new 1 credit pack would be worth $12.50
So it looks like the new price of credits is going up if it is going to be $15 at the maximum.
P.S. And I'm so sorry to all you mega photo geniuses out there for using the words high quality when referring to microstock. Shame on me. I'm not sure why you would be slumming through the microstock forums.
-
Essentially: Any image in the middle range will be OK. Anything in the low end like simple vectors will stop selling and the high end images will get a reduced royalty.
-
Smart move by iStock, nice and simple pricing, not everything is commodified, mirrored files over at Getty. If they ditch the RC royalties and sort the search out to breath life into new work I might be tempted back to exclusivity.
It's a close call though as Shutterstock is doing pretty well at the moment. The download numbers will tell a better picture over the next few months.
-
I don´t have a lot of sales on istock, because of a codec bug they have I couldn´t upload in the last few months. If I do have a sale I get a mix of everything, not just hd sales.
15% for video is just too low. It should be 30% like on SS at least.
This is a disgrace. I will be going in and deleting my videos.
-
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. Even though the number of credits required to purchase an image is greatly reduced, this whole system is still based on a dollars-to-credits conversion.
To me, simplified pricing would be to just price things in dollars. Or if they insist on credits, using a basic 1-credit-equals-1-dollar system. This new thing, though, looks like just more of the same complicated pricing from iStock.
-
Am I oversimplifying this is I say that it looks like iStock is just shifting the dollars-to-credits conversion rate, raising the value of a credit while reducing the credit cost of an image?
I know there are other factors, but in basic terms, from what my attempts to catch up on in this topic, essentially their system remains the same, just with a change in the balance between what credits cost and what they can be used for has changed.
And most of us will earn less because of this. But basically it's still just a shift in credit/currency conversion..?
-
Am I oversimplifying this is I say that it looks like iStock is just shifting the dollars-to-credits conversion rate, raising the value of a credit while reducing the credit cost of an image?
I know there are other factors, but in basic terms, from what my attempts to catch up on in this topic, essentially their system remains the same, just with a change in the balance between what credits cost and what they can be used for has changed.
And most of us will earn less because of this. But basically it's still just a shift in credit/currency conversion..?
They are scrapping Vetta and I think Signature+, too, as well as scrapping pricing according to the size of the download, and changing the price for files, too, so it's a bit more complicated than you describe.
-
After the changes you will no longer be able to convert earnings to credits. So fill them up while you can:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7041944 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7041944)
-
Some buyers are adding comments to the Big News post on Istock's Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/istock (https://www.facebook.com/istock)
-
Poorly received by suppliers AND buyers. Awesome. :-\
-
I can't help but wonder if some buyers who purchased expensive Vetta or other high priced files in the last several weeks will be asking for a refund then repurchase the file at the new lower credit price. Can we expect to see a lot of posts about higher than normal refunds next month?
-
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.
-
What a surprise...customers can use a calculator and realise their buying power for single files will drop by 80% in 10 days. The real reaction will come when the new credits appear in everyones account.
I don´t think any agency has ever reduced a customers options so drastically so abruptly in the last 10 years I have been here.
-
What a surprise...customers can use a calculator and realise their buying power for single files will drop by 80% in 10 days.
The majority of the collection at most sizes is clearly going to cost considerably less.
Some specific content is going to be costing more - specifically web sized images. But the only place I ever see those image sizes today are in editorial style articles - and these users typically want regular content - they are not typically going to be paying for their use via the existing 10 credit packs.
-
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.
-
Wow I just realized the web size price goes up considerably, after reading the Facebook comments.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
[ 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!!!!!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Here, I whipped this up as an illustration: http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/04/istockphoto-change-illustration/ (http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/04/istockphoto-change-illustration/)
-
Here, I whipped this up as an illustration: [url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/04/istockphoto-change-illustration/[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/04/istockphoto-change-illustration/[/url])
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.
-
Here, I whipped this up as an illustration: [url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/04/istockphoto-change-illustration/[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/04/istockphoto-change-illustration/[/url])
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.
-
Here, I whipped this up as an illustration: [url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/04/istockphoto-change-illustration/[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/04/istockphoto-change-illustration/[/url])
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.
-
I haven't read through the whole thread yet but I guess I missed them saying that.
-
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).
-
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 (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.
-
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 %.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
That bolded statement is only true if you look for full sized images
Broadly means broadly. It doesn't mean in every single instance.
-
Careful what you wish for eh? they seem to have come up with the same idea I spoke about here http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/dear-stock-agencies-time-for-you-to-take-control/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/dear-stock-agencies-time-for-you-to-take-control/)
While their listening,
1. make jpegs of vectors available for the standard price and the vector versions all under the premium price,
2. increase Thinkstock PPD in line with SS,
3. up our percentage to much closer to 50%
That is all
-
We contributors are so lonely. We can't punch the table and say NO! So the agencies keep abusing this. Normally businesses buy or produces what they sell. Microstock agencies don't do this. They just do the PR, take our works and sell. And what they get for this is 85%.. what!?
I do both photos and vectors. I'm traveling, waiting for hours for the right scene, right light, dogging precious moments, buying the best equipments, 5 grant dollar camera, expensive lenses, filters, studio equipment, studio itself, drawing tablet, generating arts, drawing, sketching, re-drawing, following trends, trying to create what people need and guess what they might need in the future, improving myself and investing money on it.. typing titles, descriptions and loads of keywords which is the biggest pain in the a*s and i have to do it for each file i create, thousands.. i mean i do a whole lotta work and the agency tells me my work is just 1-dollar worth no matter what size and sometimes my work is cheap because it's simple (the stupidest thing ever but, let's say ok..) and give me god * fifteen per cent??!!! with no expenses from their sides..
I don't know if you guys have special agreements or something but I feel abused and there is nobody to say "what the fck are you doing" to the agencies taking the prices and our percentages down and down each day.
I'm sure some you will proudly throw their sarcasm on me now. And I'm really sick of reading "like it or leave it" attitude here.
-
the agency tells me my work is just 1-dollar worth no matter what size and sometimes my work is cheap because it's simple (the stupidest thing ever but, let's say ok..) and give me god * fifteen per cent??!!! with no expenses from their sides..
Your files won't be $1, they are going to be 1 credit which will cost $8-15.
-
And I'm really sick of reading "like it or leave it" attitude here.
I've seldom read that. Very few like it, other than a few SS-lovers.
It's usually, "take it or leave it", meaning if you don't like what an agency does, leave it and either find an agent/distributor you're happy with AND which sells your image (not an easy match, apparently) or do something else (either e.g. selling yourself/Symbio or outwith photography).
Sorry you're sick of it, but what alternatives are you bringing to the table? The agencies' attitude is 'take it or leave it' except for the very few (usually image factories) who have special deals.
Stocksy seems like a viable alternative for some, and certainly they are racking up the 'take me, take me' desires by keeping people on tenterhooks for months then rejecting many (and accepting some). If your work fits what they want, why not try there - but it's really mostly lifestyle they want, and photos, not vectors, for the present.
As this is an iS thread, why not write to iS and see if they'll cut you a deal.
Otherwise, what do you suggest?
-
And where is the suggestion of whoever minussed my post above? You are perfectly entitled to express your opinion, but it might have been more helpful to HC if you'd given some positive suggestions, since my, admittedly feeble, attempts:
- Leave the agencies you don't like
- Find agencies you do like, who can sell your files
- Symbio
- Sell on your own
- Stocksy (if your photos fit)
- Get a special deal
- Do something else
were so unacceptable.
-
And where is the suggestion of whoever minusssed my post above? You are perfectly entitled to express your opinion, but it might have been more helpful to HC if you'd given some positive suggestions, since my, admittedly feeble, attempts:
- Leave the agencies you don't like
- Find agencies you do like, who can sell your files
- Symbio
- Sell on your own
- Stocksy (if your photos fit)
- Get a special deal
were so unacceptable.
It all sounds reasonable to me. Not much else to do really.
Apparently it was the suggestion to think for oneself which was unacceptable. :)
Funny thing I asked someone who wanted critique on a new PF what they thought of their own PF not so long ago. That was ignored.
-
IStock has several problems that they refuse to recognize.
They all have the same route cause, they pay a percentage to contributors that is much too low compared to their competitors. This plays out in several ways that is bad for them and us.
Firstly, all their strategies are based on them having the widest choice for customers and best content because they offer exclusivity. This is no longer true as many contributors refuse to work with them because their shabby treatment and low rates. Shutterstock may not call the millions of additional image they have "exclusive", but for a microstock customer in effect they are, and IStock has no one to blame but themselves.
Secondly, they can't compete with other sites on price for the same reason. They cut percentages for contributors so low that contributors can sell their work for half the price elsewhere, clean up on volume, and still earn a better RPD than on IStock. IStock can't cut their prices without increasing their rates to us, their competitors with better remuneration will always be able to cut lower because of it.
This new model wont work for all the same reasons they have been losing ground all along. If they want to compete they need to increase contributor rates back close to 50% and Thinkstock RPD to 28-38c tiered, but good luck convincing them of that!
-
I think their problem is that they invented the car, but they're still tinkering with the Model T while the rest of their competitors have moved on.
-
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 ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/close-up-of-orange-slice-25406418?st=288a235[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/close-up-of-orange-slice-25406418?st=288a235[/url])) - 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.
https://twitter.com/ilona_andrews/status/503247244800569344 (https://twitter.com/ilona_andrews/status/503247244800569344)
Dear iStock, go home, you are drunk.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/blank-book-21381392?st=24d71e8[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/blank-book-21381392?st=24d71e8[/url])
I am not paying you $73 for that image.
-
I think if they just kicked out all the rubbish out of their higher priced collection and prevented the ugly getty leftovers from ever entering the istock system, they could do more for their reputation than all the other changes coming now. They could keep their 4 tier system as long as there is a visible difference as the price goes up.
And it is something that nobody is doing at the moment,filter all incoming content by quality (including indie content) and put it into the appropriate price band.
They have enough editors to do it and this would really set istock apart.
You can't write a program to filter for visual style, you need qualified human beings to do this.
But I guess quality is supposed to be the privilege of getty,while istock is just the dump for everything these days.
I really don't see how istock will be more successful than Thinkstock. It is not like they haven't experimented with a cheap subs site for years, but it never grew into a major threat for the other agencies.
So why would they be more successful with istock?
I am all for simplifying things, but raising the price for the basic,daily used files by 500% is something I don't understand. And the 1% high quality stuff,that customers didn't mind spending on, is now underpriced.
Anyway, nothing we can do in the short term and the indies will be making more money. And if the customers that love buying by credit and size leave, they will go to the websites where I am already present and I get a higher royalty, so looks like I can't really lose with this system (except for video).
But the poor customer, every year they have to endure a new drastic change and relearn how to find what they need. It is not a surprise many are leaving for the more stable agencies.
-
You can't write a program to filter for visual style, you need qualified human beings to do this.
Something SS has to learn too!
-
WOW... I haven't had a download since sept 2, it's never been this slow for me in the 10 years I've been at iSock.
My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com
-
Meanwhile I've seen an uptic in SS credit sales, I've had several $3+ sales.
The idea of making more from sm/med sounds good if those sales don't turn into subs.
Now maybe some are looking forward to the new prices and are waiting.... But I would think customers with credits would use up credits to scoop up some sm/med??
My Very Best :)
KimsCreativeHub.com
-
WOW... I haven't had a download since sept 2, it's never been this slow for me in the 10 years I've been at iSock.
Since being a member since about 2003, any major site change kills sales for a few weeks. The buyers have to get readjusted and the sellers are in a tizzy.
-
I've been downloading a few CSV files of past financials this afternoon - just on the offchance something goes splat after they rework the site over the weekend.
It's probably overly pessimistic, but in case there are any other pessimists out there, get your CSV files or screen grabs pre-change to compare with post-change in case anything seems wrong.
-
Thanks Jo Ann. Judging from past September iStock rollouts, this is very good advice.
-
Crap, I forgot to cash out my money before the maintenance. Hopefully the site is not down until Monday.
-
Crap, I forgot to cash out my money before the maintenance. Hopefully the site is not down until Monday.
I tried to cash mine before this week's payoneer cut-off, but the site kept freezing so I didn't manage it. And I didn't read Jo Ann's sage advice until it was too late.
-
Has anyone heard anything about when iS is supposed to be back up?
-
Nobody knows
"Making these changes is a pretty big job, so we're taking down the site, starting at 12:01am (EDT) on Saturday, September 13. We promise to make it as quick and painless as possible."
-
Sorry, we're down for maintenance
We're working hard to bring you a better iStock experience, with major changes to our credit system and pricing.
We will be back up and running this weekend, so check back often.
For the latest updates follow us on Twitter @iStock.
So I did just that:
https://twitter.com/iStock
Has anyone heard anything about when iS is supposed to be back up?
-
Looks like they dropped the price for the "essentials" sub plan and raised the priced for the "signature" sub plan, yes?
http://www.istockphoto.com/plans-and-pricing (http://www.istockphoto.com/plans-and-pricing)
And the one month signature plan is $500. No extra for the contributor from that, though, right?
And the pricing slider is gone, whose functionality is covered by the now confusing "subscriptions" filter.
-
Yes...weren't the prices much closer before?
-
one credit costs 12,50€
so we become everytime 1,88€(at 15%) minimum comission, am i right there ?
-
Yes...weren't the prices much closer before?
The old:
(http://cdn.stockphotosecrets.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/iStock-Subscriptions-590x552.png)
Guess it's the same.
-
one credit costs 12,50€
so we become everytime 1,88€(at 15%) minimum comission, am i right there ?
No, as there are advertised discounts of e.g. 25% from time to time, and we lose our share. Also there are unadvertised discounts to very big buyers which are negotiated directly, which also affects our commissions.
On the Plans and Pricing page, that's covered by "Need larger credit packs? Contact us."
So we don't really know what the 'minimum commission' could be.
-
So, is this Yuri's Big Idea for saving Midstock on iStock, while "project managing the develpment team"?
"We are working on a set of core site improvements that will dramatically improve user experience and ultimately sales. Only thing that I can say now: Give IS three months and see the changes for yourself." (June 3rd)
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/can-istock-turn-midstock-sales-around/msg382833/#msg382833[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/can-istock-turn-midstock-sales-around/msg382833/#msg382833[/url])
Or maybe this is Yuri's plan to kill iStock and drive more customers to his own site ::)
-
If iStock managers are that blind they deserve to be out on the street anyway. :D