MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: hatman12 on February 22, 2008, 05:28
-
Looks like iStock has reduced prices for L, XL and XXL images. New prices are already on the site but no announcement yet.
Presumably the recession in the States has get something to do with this.
-
Where do you see this? I just checked the homepage and prices are still the same.
-
Yep the price is reduced. It costs 9 $ for L and 13$ for XL now
-
I have seen a big jump with FT and BigStock since the istock price rise, so it could be that this was too much for buyers and they have gone to cheaper priced sites.
-
What!
They can't raise prices one month then take it away the next!
iStock is becoming a joke.
-
i am still seeing the old prices ...
-
If someone finds an official announcement somewhere from Istock, can you please post it here. My sales are improving at Istock, but a price reduction would undo all that. :o
-
I do think they need to change strategy. A lot of the top contributors have much bigger portfolios on other sites at cheaper prices. They should at least scrap the upload limits for diamond members to get all their images on istock.
-
Very disappointing !
-
It was an error
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=65367&page=4 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=65367&page=4)
-
I have never known a site that has so many technical problems. :-\
-
so remind me why people put all their eggs in this basket? :)
-
Because sometimes there's one basket where there are more people buying way more eggs than from any of the other baskets.
-
But when the server monsters jump and down on your basket...
You have no eggs.
-
So they are having a sale in one of the most busy months? That doesn't make much sense. I could understand if they did this in the summer and winter, when downloads are lower.
-
So they are having a sale in one of the most busy months? That doesn't make much sense. I could understand if they did this in the summer and winter, when downloads are lower.
Yeah, I just say that.
I'm not being funny, I don't want my images selling at discounted rates, when our work is already being valued at such low prices...
Especially not the new XL files from my 5D - I worked bloody hard to afford that camera, and now they're selling the files cheaper!
I wouldn't mind if they still gave us the full cut, or allowed us to opt out!
-
Sigh. What a stupid stunt. Maybe this marketing strategy works in grocery and department stores, but microstock is absolutely not the place for it. Next thing you know they'll be offering all our images as free downloads every Tuesday. More power to 'em, I guess. (And less commission to us.... >:( )
-
Lovely. I guess I needed this little reminder for why I'm not exclusive. If they want to have their little sale, fine. But give contributors their normal commission rate, not a discounted one.
-
Well in my opinion this is just a way of reversing some of the large price increase implemented in January. They appear to have realised that for the L, XL and XXL sizes the increase was a bridge too far, so now they've invented a way to reverse some of that rise.
As sharpshot says - you don't have a January sale in December.
I suspect that at the end of March there will be another announcement along the lines of 'our Spring sale was so successful we've decided to make it permanent'.
It's just a reversal of some of the increase disguised with some spin.
-
So, maybe a 2-steps-forward, 1-step-back, 2-steps-forward trick? To make buyers think they're truly concerned about lowering prices but slowly creeping them up anyway? Oops, maybe I let too much cat out of the bag.... ;)
-
It was an error
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=65367&page=4[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=65367&page=4[/url])
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 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.
-
It was an error
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=65367&page=4[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=65367&page=4[/url])
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 .
fotographer, I thought the same thing until I read a bit further into that post on IS. As Seren mentioned, they are having a month-long sale. See here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=65367&messageid=975618
The only goof apparently was that they let the cat out of the bag early.
-
But when the server monsters jump and down on your basket...
You have no eggs.
I would only have a few less eggs. Out of 11 sites, so far this month IS is over 70% of my earnings.
From what I saw you're just coming off of IS exclusivity so it may take you a while to see where the sites fall in your earnings ranking.
-
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!
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/springup.php
Whooyay, IStock rocks, they truly are the kings of microstock.
Whooyay (sorry said that already).
-
And gee, what do they do to shut up the nay-sayers... they lock the thread.
-
Heh, I'm wondering now if my forum ban was pre-emptive! They knew I'd make a stink!
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
What's FT?
-
But when the server monsters jump and down on your basket...
You have no eggs.
Good stuff. ;D
-
Good stuff. ;D
Perhaps it should be scrambled eggs.
Mmmmm, eggs...
-
Fotolia, theres a link on the right of this page. It's a great site and fast catching up with IS for earnings.
What's FT?
-
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.
-
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...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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! :(
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;D
Regards,
Adelaide
-
The usual suck ass response to this on the forums:
Thanks... thatīs OK
I still love you!
Oh god, that's sooooo gaggy!
-
The usual suck ass response to this on the forums:
Thanks... thatīs OK
I still love you!
Oh god, that's sooooo gaggy!
Stockholm syndrome, perhaps.
-
The usual suck ass response to this on the forums:
Thanks... thatīs 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.
-
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!
-
The usual suck ass response to this on the forums:
Thanks... thatīs 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.
-
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.
-
I dunno if the price increase has reduced the earnings so much. There are many diamonds who say there earnings increased. However my earnings declined by a double digit percentage.
It never declined before in the last 6-8 month or so only increased considerabely until December.
But in my case I do not think it is the higher price but it is the best match system introduced in the end of last year. This best match system only allows for a silver non- exclusive contributer like me to have 4 images in the top 100 of any search. The problem in my case is that I am a specialiste and have a niche where I am good at. So Only my 4 currently most popular by best match images show up on the first page, when you search for that particulat niche. The rest are forced back, no matter how good they are to a place beyond the first hundred.
For a generalist this is of course a good thing..
For the buyer a bad thing I suppose.
-
As I understand it all non-exclusives are limited to 4 in the top 100 of best match regardless of cannister.
As for the sale, my royalties were up significantly on Monday after being fairly flat. Too soon to tell if the sale had a role in the increase. Hopefully it did.
-
I agree my sales have jumped considerably since the sale. I hope it continues.
-
I have a record (for me) of 5 sales today.
-
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.
Not quite right a lot of store promotions are normally at the cost of the vendor, if the store pays 60 for an Item that normally sells at 99, they do not pay the same in the 20% off sale, the vendor reduces the cost.
The milk Vendors contract will be so tight that they have no choice but to supply at the lower cost, and on a sale or return basis, if the want to supply the store, this de-risks the store for losses.
It will be written into the Istock agreement somewhere that Istock set the sales price and you get the percentage of that, and that they have the right to move the price point either way.
These are the rules of business and contributors are blinded by the "Member of the Community" on Istock that they forget that they are the vendor and Istock is a merchant / agent that protects its margin, often at the cost of the Vendor.
Stock is a fantastic business model, vendors supply the goods at no cost, you then dictate the sales price, you set and protect your margin and the amount you return to the vendor, based on the number of units sold.
Yippie I want to be a stock merchant! ;D
-
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.
Not quite right a lot of store promotions are normally at the cost of the vendor, if the store pays 60 for an Item that normally sells at 99, they do not pay the same in the 20% off sale, the vendor reduces the cost.
The milk Vendors contract will be so tight that they have no choice but to supply at the lower cost, and on a sale or return basis, if the want to supply the store, this de-risks the store for losses.
It will be written into the Istock agreement somewhere that Istock set the sales price and you get the percentage of that, and that they have the right to move the price point either way.
These are the rules of business and contributors are blinded by the "Member of the Community" on Istock that they forget that they are the vendor and Istock is a merchant / agent that protects its margin, often at the cost of the Vendor.
Stock is a fantastic business model, vendors supply the goods at no cost, you then dictate the sales price, you set and protect your margin and the amount you return to the vendor, based on the number of units sold.
Yippie I want to be a stock merchant! ;D
You are wrong , you are talking about promotional price not a discount , thats a supplier good will and his business decision to promote his brand of milk products , and has nothing to do with a store discount. He could be promoting his product in many stores where he sells his milk , at the same time , and the primarily goal is promoting his milk brand , not the name of the store that sells his milk. Its his decision and so it is payed from his part of the cut. The store cant force someone to promote his product.
Then I never said that istock has no legal rights to do what they are doing ,I only said that I don't feel thats fair to contributors , and as I saw on the istock forum, lots of contributors feel that way.
-
It is like when other stock sites give away credits as a promotion (lucky oliver for example). When those credits are used, they are still paid to the photographer the same way - we don't notice when LO, or shutterstock, or crestock have a 'sale' or magazine special offer, because we get paid the same amount.
Which is why when istock has this sale, people are upset that the photographers are also forced to give a sale on their image prices.