Author Topic: Standard Pricing - Is istock shooting themselves in the foot? (Read 7958 times)

EmberMike · « **on:** September 05, 2012, 11:34 »

Once istock manages to work out the bugs and get their site back online, I'm wondering what sort of impact the Standard Pricing initiative will have on buyers. It seems like one of the things that made istock's prices a bit easier to swallow was the credit system, which masked the true cost of images. By putting the actual price right there on the page, I'm wondering if this might be a put-off for some buyers.

Any thoughts? Could this new initiative have a negative effect on buyers' perception of where istock pricing is positioned relative to other companies?

JPSDK · « **Reply #1 on:** September 05, 2012, 12:05 »

I think they are aiming for a new customers segment.
Would they scare the old customers away? I dont think so. Anybody who buyes pictures would know the exact price, credit system or not since they actually pay and press the button.
I also think their prices are too high, microstock is supposed to be cheap, thats the whole idear.

cmannphoto · « **Reply #2 on:** September 05, 2012, 12:06 »

I don't think you are giving the buyer enough credit here.

I work with several magazines and they are pinching every penny because of their shrinking budgets. They buy both RM and RF they have to know what they are paying either by the single new DL or through the credit system.

The buyers with the credit purchases will obviously pay less than the shown amount for a direct buy. I think and hope that this will lead to some missed sales from buyers who did not want to buy excess credits for one or two images.

EmberMike · « **Reply #3 on:** September 05, 2012, 12:43 »

Quote from: cmannphoto on September 05, 2012, 12:06

I don't think you are giving the buyer enough credit here.

I work with several magazines and they are pinching every penny because of their shrinking budgets. They buy both RM and RF they have to know what they are paying either by the single new DL or through the credit system...

I'm sure there are many buyers like the ones you work with, you are incredibly aware of exactly how much they are spending. My experience has been quite the opposite of yours, though, and I'm mostly aware of buyers who have no idea of how much they really spend per image. My last in-house job was with an agency that bought various credit packages, different amounts of credits each time, throughout the year, and the designers purchasing the individual images never had any idea what was paid for the credits they were using.

That is more likely the customer I'm thinking may have a negative reaction to this, when they become keenly aware that these images cost money, not just credits, and very often the dollar amount translates to significantly more than the number of credits used to download an image.

It may have no effect on anything. That's very possible. I just can't completely overlook the comments I've heard, people talking about using credits to buy images being similar to using Monopoly money, where it just doesn't feel like you're actually spending anything. Stripping away the screen that made those people feel like they were using play money will have to make at least a few people pause and consider how much they've really been spending on images.

oxman · « **Reply #4 on:** September 05, 2012, 12:58 »

That is a good point. I am sure some will feel sticker shock over the reality pricing.

But I think back to before microstock when we were paying thousands for and image with limited usage. and how cheap the photos are now with unlimited usage. it is SOOOO much cheaper than 12 years ago.

but none of that will matter these days

traveler1116 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 05, 2012, 13:06 »

Quote from: EmberMike on September 05, 2012, 12:43

Quote from: cmannphoto on September 05, 2012, 12:06
I don't think you are giving the buyer enough credit here.

I work with several magazines and they are pinching every penny because of their shrinking budgets. They buy both RM and RF they have to know what they are paying either by the single new DL or through the credit system...

I'm sure there are many buyers like the ones you work with, you are incredibly aware of exactly how much they are spending. My experience has been quite the opposite of yours, though, and I'm mostly aware of buyers who have no idea of how much they really spend per image. My last in-house job was with an agency that bought various credit packages, different amounts of credits each time, throughout the year, and the designers purchasing the individual images never had any idea what was paid for the credits they were using.

That is more likely the customer I'm thinking may have a negative reaction to this, when they become keenly aware that these images cost money, not just credits, and very often the dollar amount translates to significantly more than the number of credits used to download an image.

It may have no effect on anything. That's very possible. I just can't completely overlook the comments I've heard, people talking about using credits to buy images being similar to using Monopoly money, where it just doesn't feel like you're actually spending anything. Stripping away the screen that made those people feel like they were using play money will have to make at least a few people pause and consider how much they've really been spending on images.

So our images aren't worth these prices? I think they are and selling images for a dollar is way undervaluing our work.

EmberMike · « **Reply #6 on:** September 05, 2012, 13:08 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 05, 2012, 13:06

So our images aren't worth these prices? I think they are and selling images for a dollar is way undervaluing our work.

Where did I say anything about images not being worth those prices? Or selling images for a dollar?

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #7 on:** September 05, 2012, 13:17 »

I'm glad iStock has the pricing structure they do. Personally I feel it is still too low of a value for what we have invested in our work but certainly better than certain sites I used to deal with.

Having said that, now that I can see the price differences between the various exclusive tiers I'll be giving each image alot more scrutiny before deciding where to place it.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 05, 2012, 13:22 »

Quote from: EmberMike on September 05, 2012, 13:08

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 05, 2012, 13:06
So our images aren't worth these prices? I think they are and selling images for a dollar is way undervaluing our work.

Where did I say anything about images not being worth those prices? Or selling images for a dollar?

I figured that was what you were going for based on some of your other statements, maybe I'm just reading too much into it though?:

"And I say that based on observations of the market, particularly istock who have been steadily raising prices and are now seemingly at a point where they've gone too high for the market to bear. It's almost impossible to imagine how any company could reach similar pricing levels while still offering a fair percentage to contributors. "

"I don't think someone should have to pay $10 for a 350x350px jpg. "

"gyllens, where do you currently buy images? You might even save some money buying from places like SF. They're cheaper than istock and give artists a greater percentage of each sale. Supporting companies like that is a good way to influence the direction of this business in the coming years. "

"I wish they'd drop the prices on regular collection stuff too. "

KB · « **Reply #9 on:** September 05, 2012, 13:35 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 05, 2012, 13:22

"I don't think someone should have to pay $10 for a 350x350px jpg. "

I don't know how many buyers will be shocked but the $$ prices, but I think some contributors (such as myself) are.

An XS E+ is $19.
An XS Vetta is $60.

Those collections are definitely not microstock.

On the other hand, regular exclusive XS files are "only" $8, and non-exclusive regular XS files are a very microstocky $3.

If any one group benefits from this, surely it will be non-exclusive contributors?

EmberMike · « **Reply #10 on:** September 05, 2012, 13:38 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on September 05, 2012, 13:22

Quote from: EmberMike on September 05, 2012, 13:08
Quote from: traveler1116 on September 05, 2012, 13:06
So our images aren't worth these prices? I think they are and selling images for a dollar is way undervaluing our work.

Where did I say anything about images not being worth those prices? Or selling images for a dollar?
I figured that was what you were going for based on some of your other statements, maybe I'm just reading too much into it though?:

"And I say that based on observations of the market, particularly istock who have been steadily raising prices and are now seemingly at a point where they've gone too high for the market to bear. It's almost impossible to imagine how any company could reach similar pricing levels while still offering a fair percentage to contributors. "

"I don't think someone should have to pay $10 for a 350x350px jpg. "

"gyllens, where do you currently buy images? You might even save some money buying from places like SF. They're cheaper than istock and give artists a greater percentage of each sale. Supporting companies like that is a good way to influence the direction of this business in the coming years. "

"I wish they'd drop the prices on regular collection stuff too. "

Wow. I think I have a stalker.

Sure, I think istock's prices are too high. But in this thread, I've said nothing of the sort and it's not relevant to this discussion. This is about the Standard Pricing initiative, in which the actual cost of images at istock is becoming more transparent. Relative to the rest of the market, istock's prices are on the high end. That's not my opinion, it's just how things are. I'm just wondering if the credit system has been helpful in masking how much higher the istock prices are compared to other places, and if this will backfire on istock.

My opinion of where the prices are doesn't matter. What does matter in this discussion is whether seeing $22 vs. seeing 15 credits will influence a buyer's decision to purchase an image.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 05, 2012, 13:42 »

Quote from: EmberMike on September 05, 2012, 13:38

Sure, I think istock's prices are too high. But in this thread, I've said nothing of the sort and it's not relevant to this discussion. This is about the Standard Pricing initiative, in which the actual cost of images at istock is becoming more transparent. Relative to the rest of the market, istock's prices are on the high end. I'm wondering if the credit system has been helpful in masking just how much higher the istock prices are compared to other places, and if this will backfire on istock.

My opinion of where the prices are doesn't matter. What does matter in this discussion is whether seeing $22 vs. seeing 15 credits will influence a buyer's decision to purchase an image.

On the other hand seeing higher dollar prices might get some people to buy credits since they come out cheaper?

gostwyck · « **Reply #12 on:** September 05, 2012, 15:08 »

I think Istock, outages aside, have done a good job on their 'Standard Pricing'. The truth is that prices have now risen so high that they've basically out-grown the need for a credit system for low-volume customers. Back when they started it would have been impractical to have payments of 50c as the transaction costs would have been too high. It would appear that the cheapest XS image nowadays is about $3.50, enough for a single transaction.

stan · « **Reply #13 on:** September 05, 2012, 15:08 »

Quote from: EmberMike on September 05, 2012, 11:34

Once istock manages to work out the bugs and get their site back online, I'm wondering what sort of impact the Standard Pricing initiative will have on buyers. It seems like one of the things that made istock's prices a bit easier to swallow was the credit system, which masked the true cost of images. By putting the actual price right there on the page, I'm wondering if this might be a put-off for some buyers.

Any thoughts? Could this new initiative have a negative effect on buyers' perception of where istock pricing is positioned relative to other companies?

Yes, they could get a seizure from laughing so hard in the face of ridiculously low prices. If anything the credit system masked just how dirt cheap images are. Sure, price is too high for many crappy images, but for those gems that you can find in virtually every MS library...

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #14 on:** September 05, 2012, 16:19 »

Quote from: EmberMike on September 05, 2012, 11:34

Once istock manages to work out the bugs and get their site back online, I'm wondering what sort of impact the Standard Pricing initiative will have on buyers. It seems like one of the things that made istock's prices a bit easier to swallow was the credit system, which masked the true cost of images. By putting the actual price right there on the page, I'm wondering if this might be a put-off for some buyers.

Any thoughts? Could this new initiative have a negative effect on buyers' perception of where istock pricing is positioned relative to other companies?

I think the buyers that are going to use it aren't very price sensitive. Like I pay $20 every two weeks at the gym instead of the slightly discounted rate because I want the convenience and lack of worry.

Freedom · « **Reply #15 on:** September 05, 2012, 19:50 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 05, 2012, 15:08

I think Istock, outages aside, have done a good job on their 'Standard Pricing'. The truth is that prices have now risen so high that they've basically out-grown the need for a credit system for low-volume customers. Back when they started it would have been impractical to have payments of 50c as the transaction costs would have been too high. It would appear that the cheapest XS image nowadays is about $3.50, enough for a single transaction.

Makes sense.

Freedom · « **Reply #16 on:** September 05, 2012, 20:21 »

Quote from: sjlocke on September 05, 2012, 16:19

Quote from: EmberMike on September 05, 2012, 11:34

Once istock manages to work out the bugs and get their site back online, I'm wondering what sort of impact the Standard Pricing initiative will have on buyers. It seems like one of the things that made istock's prices a bit easier to swallow was the credit system, which masked the true cost of images. By putting the actual price right there on the page, I'm wondering if this might be a put-off for some buyers.

Any thoughts? Could this new initiative have a negative effect on buyers' perception of where istock pricing is positioned relative to other companies?

I think the buyers that are going to use it aren't very price sensitive. Like I pay $20 every two weeks at the gym instead of the slightly discounted rate because I want the convenience and lack of worry.

Agree.

pancaketom · « **Reply #17 on:** September 05, 2012, 20:54 »

They should also post what the artist gets out of the sale.

cmannphoto · « **Reply #18 on:** September 05, 2012, 21:02 »

Quote from: pancaketom on September 05, 2012, 20:54

They should also post what the artist gets out of the sale.

With all do respect, do you have a calculator?

How you get paid
You still get paid the same way: your current royalty percentage on each US Dollar spent downloading your files.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #19 on:** September 05, 2012, 21:05 »

Quote from: pancaketom on September 05, 2012, 20:54

They should also post what the artist gets out of the sale.

http://www.istockphoto.com/help/sell-stock/rate-schedule

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** September 06, 2012, 06:48 »

I suspect PT wishes it were clear to buyers what percentage the artist makes.

EmberMike · « **Reply #21 on:** September 06, 2012, 09:55 »

Quote from: KB on September 05, 2012, 13:35

I don't know how many buyers will be shocked but the $$ prices, but I think some contributors (such as myself) are...

You're not alone. A contributor in the thread about this over at istock made the comment that the Standard Pricing rates seem to be double the credit rates. They're double the number of dollars compared to the number of credits, but obviously 1 credit doesn't often equate to 1 dollar. Seems like it's not uncommon for contributors to be somewhat unaware of what images at istock really cost, especially under the credit system.

It's been a long time since anyone could affordably gets credits at anywhere close to $1 per at istock. And yet it seems like there was still the mentality that a 10 credit image still cost around $10, even though in reality it was probably closer to $15.

This kind of reaffirms my belief that the credit system was successfully masking the true cost of images, not only to contributors but also buyers. I still think that the Standard Pricing system will serve as a rude awakening for some buyers (maybe not many, but some) that they've been paying a lot more for their images than they probably realized.

lisafx · « **Reply #22 on:** September 06, 2012, 13:07 »

Quote from: ShadySue on September 06, 2012, 06:48

I suspect PT wishes it were clear to buyers what percentage the artist makes.

Exactly the way I read it. That's why I gave him a heart. It would be nice if buyers had this info. Might influence the buying behavior of some.

JPSDK · « **Reply #23 on:** September 06, 2012, 13:38 »

There are many kinds of buyers.
There are those who work in the marketing department of a big company. Such a company just pays the bills, and the designers just download pictures. Noone thinks about the cost of the pictures. Only once a year, when budgets are made, or budgets have to shrink, there is a debate about if "we really need this or that". It might end up in a rule: Only buy on credits and only download exactly what you need.

Then there are buyers from small freelance agencies. I bet they know exactly what they download and pay for.
And then those in between.
A real danger to a microstock agency, is to press prices to the level where it comes to the budget makers attention. That is when they begin to seek other and cheaper solutions.
That would often mean that they try another agency for a period. If there are quality issues, or search machine issues they will look back at the old agency again when the period expires. AND here lies the real danger for a picture selling agency, if quality declines and state of the art pictures are not provided, a customer is lost for good.

As well as the microstock agencies squeeze profit out of both the contributor and the customer, they also have a double edged sword hanging over their head. The business can shrink double as fast as a normal business, that only makes profit out of one of the sides.

yes, I have worked in the sales and marketing department of a big company.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Standard Pricing - Is istock shooting themselves in the foot? (Read 7958 times)

EmberMike

JPSDK

cmannphoto

EmberMike

oxman

traveler1116

EmberMike

mlwinphoto

traveler1116

KB

EmberMike

traveler1116

gostwyck

stan

Sean Locke Photography

Freedom

Freedom

pancaketom

cmannphoto

traveler1116

ShadySue

EmberMike

lisafx

JPSDK

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors