pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Moving iStock Forward - September 2, 2014. contributor newsletter  (Read 41275 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: September 03, 2014, 09:02 »
+9
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.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #101 on: September 03, 2014, 09:08 »
+4
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:


And if it was a typo and you meant to say RF, again some agencies price by size, e.g. Alamy and Stocksy:

« Reply #102 on: September 03, 2014, 09:10 »
0
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.

« Reply #103 on: September 03, 2014, 09:13 »
0
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.

« Reply #104 on: September 03, 2014, 09:16 »
+2
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.

« Reply #105 on: September 03, 2014, 09:17 »
+2
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.

« Reply #106 on: September 03, 2014, 09:18 »
-3
I don't think Alamy or Getty RM is priced by size.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 09:21 by tickstock »

« Reply #107 on: September 03, 2014, 09:25 »
+3
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.

marthamarks

« Reply #108 on: September 03, 2014, 09:43 »
+3
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!"

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #109 on: September 03, 2014, 09:45 »
+4
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...


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?"

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #110 on: September 03, 2014, 09:50 »
+6
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.

« Reply #111 on: September 03, 2014, 10:00 »
0
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!

« Reply #112 on: September 03, 2014, 10:06 »
0
Hmm... the board software removed the word "svc king" from the post above then wouldn't let me edit.

« Reply #113 on: September 03, 2014, 10:09 »
+4
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.   



 

« Reply #114 on: September 03, 2014, 10:11 »
0
Has there been any indication how much new credits will actually cost? 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #115 on: September 03, 2014, 10:19 »
+1
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
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 10:30 by ShadySue »

« Reply #116 on: September 03, 2014, 10:33 »
0
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


Obviously it won't be anywhere near $2, as that would equate to one of today's credits costing $.40 at the maximum.

« Reply #117 on: September 03, 2014, 10:34 »
0
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

Oh thanks Sue! 

Notice in your link they state Sept 15, and in the link Joanne posted http://www.istockphoto.com/simplified-image-collections they say Sept 13?

« Reply #118 on: September 03, 2014, 10:38 »
+1
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


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?

« Reply #119 on: September 03, 2014, 10:40 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 10:43 by bunhill »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #120 on: September 03, 2014, 10:41 »
0
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

Oh thanks Sue! 

Notice in your link they state Sept 15, and in the link Joanne posted http://www.istockphoto.com/simplified-image-collections they say Sept 13?


Yes, when I saw that link, I thought I'd seen Sept 13th quoted somewhere.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #121 on: September 03, 2014, 10:47 »
+2
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'.

« Reply #122 on: September 03, 2014, 10:49 »
0
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?

« Reply #123 on: September 03, 2014, 10:49 »
0
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


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.

« Reply #124 on: September 03, 2014, 10:51 »
+3
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
3289 Views
Last post September 17, 2013, 23:17
by tickstock
0 Replies
2303 Views
Last post September 02, 2014, 12:29
by Sean Locke Photography
0 Replies
2455 Views
Last post September 02, 2014, 12:29
by Sean Locke Photography
5 Replies
3778 Views
Last post October 27, 2014, 15:49
by gostwyck
6 Replies
4483 Views
Last post April 19, 2015, 19:37
by PeterChigmaroff

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors