Quote from: tickstock on September 26, 2014, 16:11

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 26, 2014, 16:08

Quote from: tickstock on September 26, 2014, 15:55

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 26, 2014, 15:50

It's implied in what you said in reply to Pixelbytes' observation.

No it's not.   Lots of buyers are getting much cheaper files now, overall the prices have come down since the change.  Some buyers may feel shafted and may not come back even with lower prices but some buyers will probably look at the prices and that's all they will be concerned with.

How do you know that "overall prices have come down since the change"? That depends on a whole lot of data about what the sales volume at different price points was that neither you nor I are privy to.  There's no doubt at all that some buyers are feeling shafted, and with good reason.
So when you say buyers might just look at the price comparison between SS and iS and go for iS based on price alone, in response to Pixelbytes' observation about customers possibly being put off by iStock's record of unilaterally scrapping its deals with buyers and substituting other stuff, you are being obtuse. Istock has made itself unreliable to customers by devaluing/revaluing/messing about with their accounts. That's beyond question.

You obviously feel very strongly about this.  I'm not going to be bullied into agreeing with your position just because you call me names though.  I think I'll step away from this argument before things get too heated.

I'm not bullying you, and I only feel strongly about the truth, regardless of whether it favours iStock, SS or any other company.

It's not a matter for debate, even by iS cheerleaders.
The fact is, they revalued iS credits which people had bought with certain expectations. Of course, they have had a history of that, though not to such a large degree.
This is quite different from changing prices on a website or in a supermarket, as they already have the money.
Of course, they'll have covered their behinds in the T&C, but which other known/reliable/international company works that way and has changed so often.

It's a "very expensive option" if you only  want 25 microstock images.  It's about $80 per image, not 22c an image.

Should be the minimum price considering our work. The fact is that microstock industry is engaging a commercial war where the only victims will be photographers and photography. Don't forget that iStock is paying 15% of commission to the newbies. One-five!! Less is not possible to find in any other business. If the MS agency are plenty of amateur, ready to have 10 bucks per month, will never be possible to change the situation.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 26, 2014, 15:41

It's a "very expensive option" if you only  want 25 microstock images.  It's about $80 per image, not 22c an image.

Should be the minimum price considering our work. The fact is that microstock industry is engaging a commercial war where the only victims will be photographers and photography. Don't forget that iStock is paying 15% of commission to the newbies. One-five!! Less is not possible to find in any other business. If the MS agency are plenty of amateur, ready to have 10 bucks per month, will never be possible to change the situation.

If your work is worth a minimum of $80 per license, why are you selling it through micro-payment stock (to go back to the original name)?

How long will Getty customers to figure out this hack?

in my experience, the typical RM buyers are not begging for the cheapest deal, they're willing to pay a premium for the photo that better fits their needs.