Author Topic: Prices reduced...... (Read 15453 times)

massman · « **Reply #25 on:** February 22, 2008, 13:24 »

http://www.istockphoto.com/springup.php

Whooyay, IStock rocks, they truly are the kings of microstock.

Whooyay (sorry said that already).

pixelbrat · « **Reply #26 on:** February 22, 2008, 13:28 »

And gee, what do they do to shut up the nay-sayers... they lock the thread.

Seren · « **Reply #27 on:** February 22, 2008, 14:03 »

Heh, I'm wondering now if my forum ban was pre-emptive! They knew I'd make a stink!

fotografer · « **Reply #28 on:** February 22, 2008, 14:31 »

Sorry didn't bother reading down far enough.
That's one thread that hasn't got the exculusives shouting and cheering about how wonderful IS is.

Quote from: Seren on February 22, 2008, 12:05

Quote from: fotografer on February 22, 2008, 12:02

I don't know if you all missed this post or not but the whole thing was an error on the part of IS. The buyers got the images cheaper but the photographers get the commission at the higher price so everyone should be happy .

I don't know if you missed this, but iStock just announced they are having a sale.

photojay · « **Reply #29 on:** February 22, 2008, 15:01 »

Quote from: Seren on February 22, 2008, 13:13

I was with the other big sites before I went exclusive, so I have a good idea where they will fall in my earnings.

And I'm really glad I'm not exclusive with them now they're messing with prices again in the form of a sale. I didn't agree to have my images sell for less...

I also have jewellery selling in a few galleries in the UK, and if one of them did a sale without telling me, and then just sent me less than I was supposed to earn, I'd go mental. I'd send them an invoice for the difference!

I agree. There should be a way to opt out of the sale. Contributors have less and less power each day this system continues.

madelaide · « **Reply #30 on:** February 22, 2008, 16:59 »

Quote from: Seren on February 22, 2008, 08:47

I have never known a site that has so many technical problems. $:-\$

I thought you were at FT as well?

It was nice to have a US$2.25 sale today. I love when I have a sale out of the XS-S-M range!

Edited: FP had a sale a while ago, but the discount was only in their share of the sale.

Regards,
Adelaide

Seren · « **Reply #31 on:** February 22, 2008, 17:02 »

What's FT?

yingyang0 · « **Reply #32 on:** February 22, 2008, 17:12 »

Quote from: Seren on February 22, 2008, 10:05

But when the server monsters jump and down on your basket...

You have no eggs.

Good stuff.

Seren · « **Reply #33 on:** February 22, 2008, 17:13 »

Quote from: yingyang0 on February 22, 2008, 17:12

Good stuff.

Perhaps it should be scrambled eggs.

Mmmmm, eggs...

fotografer · « **Reply #34 on:** February 22, 2008, 17:19 »

Fotolia, theres a link on the right of this page. It's a great site and fast catching up with IS for earnings.

Quote from: Seren on February 22, 2008, 17:02

What's FT?

Seren · « **Reply #35 on:** February 22, 2008, 17:22 »

Oh yea, I'm on Fotolia. I've uploaded about half of my portfolio, but only have 7 approved so far! Just another few hundred to go...

I would have abbreviated it to FL I guess! That's why it didn't click.

lisafx · « **Reply #36 on:** February 22, 2008, 17:53 »

Well that might be confusing since FL is the abbreviation for Florida.

If istock wants to have sales that is all well and good, but they should finance them out of their 80% of my earnings.

When I pay for gear, props, location fees, and models I don't expect istock to foot part of the bill...

hatman12 · « **Reply #37 on:** February 22, 2008, 19:08 »

I'm not sure I agree with your drift on this one Lisa. There was a big price increase in January and this 'sale' only reverses a small part of that increase. So on a net basis isn't it the case that prices and income are still higher than before january 7th? So doesn't that mean that on a net basis you are still better off? How can that be a penalty?

lisafx · « **Reply #38 on:** February 22, 2008, 19:35 »

That's one way to look at it.

However from my perspective (and apparently a large number of others) sales at istock have been declining steadily over the past year. The price increase didn't seem to cause a further drop in downloads, but it is the only thing that managed to keep my income level steady.

And more to the point - this sale sets a very bad precedent. If istock succeeds in making us eat the cost of their mistakes, this definitely won't be the last time. And I would hate this "sale at the expense of contributors" idea to catch on across the board.

Istock already has the lowest commissions in the industry. If they aren't going to increase commissions, the least they can do is not nibble away at them with each promotion.

Finally, the whole thing - how it was done and that it is being done at all - doesn't seem like the act of a confident industry leader.

What I hope is that they get their act back together and start taking care of all their contributors. This is too much for many people to be expected to swallow, particularly in light of the intellectual property "culling" that is devastating many contributors portfolios and best selling images.

jcphoto · « **Reply #39 on:** February 22, 2008, 20:04 »

somehow, I suddenly feel like a supplier to Walmart. Sure there are lots of sales, but the margin is so tight (20%) that it makes one wonder. And then to "make " me put my work on sale is just a sort of slap in the face. WOO YAH!

Lizard · « **Reply #40 on:** February 22, 2008, 20:45 »

That sucks for many reasons

But lets compare that to any other business. Any huge store that wants to discount a product has to do that paying their share of the cut. What does a milk producer care about a store discount ? He has his price and as he is concerned they can give his milk for free after they pay him his share.

They get 80% , and they still want to make experimental decisions that involve cutting our 20% ?

And in the end the thing that hurts most is the way to do that , and the ironic topic on their forums , and how the thing ends , the discount is officially announced , so everything is clear now. LOCK.

thesentinel · « **Reply #41 on:** February 23, 2008, 07:01 »

Quote from: Lizard on February 22, 2008, 20:45

That sucks for many reasons

But lets compare that to any other business. Any huge store that wants to discount a product has to do that paying their share of the cut. What does a milk producer care about a store discount ? He has his price and as he is concerned they can give his milk for free after they pay him his share.

Certainly here in the UK MANY suppliers fund both in-store offers, and long term discounting. Eggs, Poultry Milk producers etc can find the selves being paid less than the cost of production, and 2 for 1 offers are often fully funded by the supplier.

jcphoto · « **Reply #42 on:** February 23, 2008, 07:52 »

Good point! However, there is usually some kind of discussion or agreement put in place before the co-op sale is put in place. I know it's not realistic for Istock to negotiate with it's members, but a bit of warning about their intentions via site mail might have been appropriate.

madelaide · « **Reply #43 on:** February 23, 2008, 10:20 »

I agree with the fears that discounts may get frequent. We'll have summer sales, Thanksgiving sales, Christmas sales, and so forth. Of course, this will not mean discount prices the whole year, but it doesn't look good for contributors, except that once in a while a buyer may buy the bigger size because it's just slightly more costly than the medium sizes.

But I guess we should be happy they don't take the discount only from our share.

Regards,
Adelaide

Cooper · « **Reply #44 on:** February 23, 2008, 10:30 »

The usual suck ass response to this on the forums:

Thanks... that´s OK

I still love you!

Oh god, that's sooooo gaggy!

vphoto · « **Reply #45 on:** February 23, 2008, 10:48 »

Quote from: Cooper on February 23, 2008, 10:30

The usual suck ass response to this on the forums:

Thanks... that´s OK

I still love you!

Oh god, that's sooooo gaggy!

Stockholm syndrome, perhaps.

diane39 · « **Reply #46 on:** February 23, 2008, 12:00 »

Quote from: Cooper on February 23, 2008, 10:30

The usual suck ass response to this on the forums:

Thanks... that´s OK

I still love you!

Oh god, that's sooooo gaggy!

To be fair, don't you think that kind of response is in the minority this time?

I, and other long time contributors, are less than thrilled with this "sale" and have said so in the forums.

Seren · « **Reply #47 on:** February 23, 2008, 16:22 »

Excellent!

An Australian friend of mine has pointed out that's it's also bad marketing because they're running a spring sale... when Aus and other places are in Autumn! Way to alienate a market iStock!

nruboc · « **Reply #48 on:** February 23, 2008, 19:07 »

Quote from: diane39 on February 23, 2008, 12:00

Quote from: Cooper on February 23, 2008, 10:30
The usual suck ass response to this on the forums:

Thanks... that´s OK

I still love you!

Oh god, that's sooooo gaggy!

To be fair, don't you think that kind of response is in the minority this time?

I, and other long time contributors, are less than thrilled with this "sale" and have said so in the forums.

Yes, I was about to say the same thing, the woo-yay crowd is in the minority in that thread. Nice to see folks speaking up for things they don't like.

KiwiRob · « **Reply #49 on:** February 25, 2008, 03:44 »

I don't mind the reduction in prices if it helps my images start selling again, since the massive price increase I have sold 50% less images in the past two months than I normally would. The price increase was a big step to far IMO.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Prices reduced...... (Read 15453 times)

massman

pixelbrat

Seren

fotografer

photojay

madelaide

Seren

yingyang0

Seren

fotografer

Seren

lisafx

hatman12

lisafx

jcphoto

Lizard

thesentinel

jcphoto

madelaide

Cooper

vphoto

diane39

Seren

nruboc

KiwiRob

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors