Author Topic: When do subs start (Read 23203 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #25 on:** April 03, 2014, 16:58 »

Quote from: ShadySue on April 03, 2014, 16:39

... RIP. Now iS is just another cheap subs company.

Except that they're not cheap. You get a whole lot less than Shutterstock for $199 and there are cheap plans at BigStock and CanStock if you're really stuck for cash that are effectively a price match. For the higher price to include everything I'd have to really like a lot of the higher priced stuff to pay so much more than SS - and I don't even get Vetta for that.

So if I go with Thinkstock I get iStock main + some Getty and StockXpert (Hemera) stuff. If I go with iStock subs I drop the Getty stuff and pick up two of the three exclusive collections.

Why wouldn't I go to Thinkstock and pay $299 vs. $499 - won't a lot of the stuff that migrated from iStock to Getty find it's way to Thinkstock that way?

It all seems way too complicated, IMO. Complicated makes getting the high volumes of sales you need as a contributor to make this work much harder.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #26 on:** April 03, 2014, 17:07 »

232$ for 250 downloads (IS essentials)
247$ for 750 downloads (SS)

2194$ for 750 downloads (IS essentials 1 year)
2537$ for 750 downloads (SS 1 year)

575$ for 250 downloads (IS signature)
4388$ for 750 downloads (IS signature 1 year)

pounds (SS) and euros (IS) converted to $

H2O · « **Reply #27 on:** April 03, 2014, 19:42 »

Just Joined iStock - Should I stay or Should I go know?

cobalt · « **Reply #28 on:** April 04, 2014, 01:45 »

Looks like the subs package is especially attractive for customers who used to buy the large credit packs. And their sales team will certainly offer an attractive combo and throw in 1000 credits in case the customer still needs to buy a few Vetta files.

Is it enough to attract customers from SS?

I really don't know. SS has a very, very simple layout, the site is ultrafast, the quality hasn't changed and there are few surprises over the years for the customer. For all "normal" needs I am not sure it would be worth switching. And if you look at S and S+ content I am not sure it looks more interesting than SS. There are many simple objects on white etc...these collections are very obviously not edited or "handpicked". The customers are not stupid.

In principle having a site with different levels of quality and prices is a good idea. But it really has to be a visible difference.

And if subs is mostly bought by established istock customers, there will be even more exclusives leaving and their good quality content with files in top positions (if sorted by sales) will drop into main. So the quality of main will be increasing, making it even harder for the remaining exclusives to stand out.

And then of course you have more and more smaller independent production teams sending in content.

I think for a system like this to really work, real editors that comb through the collections and bring together the best files from different styles would make a huge difference. To just create the illusion of being handpicked when it obviously isn't, won't give the customer an advantage.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #29 on:** April 04, 2014, 05:55 »

I had a month to prepare for this but I didn't really bother, I usually don't care that much anymore these days. But now seeing it, I just find it ridiculous once again how much sloppiness and incompetence is around.

They just don't understand that the value of Shutterstock is not the simple "price vs. number of downloads" comparison. It's that Shutterstock offers a frictionless experience. Once you sign up, download what you need, don't even think about it. You get more than you'll ever really need and you can get everything you want.

iStock again offers: Two choices; one of them containing about 60%, one of them containing 90% of the content. First decision to make. How do you decide for a full year ahead which one is the right one for you? And then you get a search experience mixing in results that are not even contained in your package, no matter which of the two you choose.

And you still get to deal with a search result page that is... arguably what the average customer actually is looking for. Obviously at least the customer won't see that they are not capable to do live reporting of downloads/royalties but will take three or four weeks for that.

But I guess that is just what you get trying to make exclusive members happy - or at least not any more unhappy than they already are. Another offer that can't compete with the market.

Monkeyman · « **Reply #30 on:** April 04, 2014, 05:59 »

Jesus... will anyone buy the Signature sub with that price difference?? This will probably be the death of all exclusives. We're not gonna get any sub downloads and less and less credit downloads.

iStock is really overestimating the quality of the exclusive collections. There are lots of files in the Main collection and at the competitor agencys with the same quality.

ferdinand · « **Reply #31 on:** April 04, 2014, 07:48 »

istock makes things so complicated that in near future even they will not understand what have they made - and then - they will resolve to make things simple -

....endless story...

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #32 on:** April 04, 2014, 10:45 »

Quote from: Monkeyman on April 04, 2014, 05:59

Jesus... will anyone buy the Signature sub with that price difference?? This will probably be the death of all exclusives. We're not gonna get any sub downloads and less and less credit downloads.

iStock is really overestimating the quality of the exclusive collections. There are lots of files in the Main collection and at the competitor agencys with the same quality.

If you do some searches and then turn on first signature collection, then essentials, it's hard to see a visual difference. When you go to stock.xchng (didn't realize it's now http://www.freeimages.com/) or dreamstime's free site, there's a really clear idea of why the paid photos cost something - look at the comparisons in this search, for example (and ignore the odd difference in the numbers of images in the top paid section vs. the bottom - weird)

http://www.stockfreeimages.com/p1/balloons.html

I'd expect to see some sort of obvious difference given how much more Signature is - but I don't. On top of which Vetta's excluded (I'm guessing that won't last long) so you can't even get everything on the site.

And then there's the Thinkstock vs. iStock subs and some of the same content in both but some differs, pricing and download rules differ, both by Getty Images, but why can't I just have one subscription place?

I just don't know what they could have been thinking...

As a friend of mine said to an executive at a software company "I like money isn't a product strategy"

ShadySue · « **Reply #33 on:** April 04, 2014, 11:11 »

I suspect all Main will be going to TS sooner rather than later.

But all the bizarre switches in policy in the past few years suggest no long- or medium-term planning.

Marta · « **Reply #34 on:** April 04, 2014, 11:12 »

No sales at all - Zero - today the slaughter appears to be greater than anticipated, getting ready to go

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #35 on:** April 04, 2014, 13:33 »

Quote from: Marta on April 04, 2014, 11:12

No sales at all - Zero - today the slaughter appears to be greater than anticipated, getting ready to go

Haha, here we go. You can't seriously draw any conclusions right now. It just can't be that all customers decide to switch to subscriptions within one day.

1) Any reasonable customer will first use up their existing credit package before changing to subscriptions
2) Many customers will stick with credit packages because even $199 is not something many customers will pay just because they need two images
3) iStock has not made a public announcement, not even started any marketing. Most customers will not even have noticed the new subscription model

Given all these I would not expect that even something in the range of 1% of downloads made on iStock today would have been through the new subscriptions. Sorry to say but you just have some bad luck on a Friday which always is a bit slow.

runeer · « **Reply #36 on:** April 04, 2014, 13:42 »

Quote from: H2O on April 03, 2014, 19:42

Just Joined iStock - Should I stay or Should I go know?

Stay as non-exclusive

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #37 on:** April 04, 2014, 13:46 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on April 04, 2014, 10:45

If you do some searches and then turn on first signature collection, then essentials, it's hard to see a visual difference. When you go to stock.xchng (didn't realize it's now http://www.freeimages.com/) or dreamstime's free site, there's a really clear idea of why the paid photos cost something - look at the comparisons in this search, for example (and ignore the odd difference in the numbers of images in the top paid section vs. the bottom - weird)

Yes. I think it has been the biggest mistake in iStock's history to price certain content higher just because the photographer is exclusive with them. An isolated apple is not worth more than a dollar, no matter who shot it.

And a second big mistake is the lack of clear indication in searches which content is priced higher or lower. Take the (visually) best exclusive images, place them in a separate top row above the other search content and most customers wouldn't have had the problems with all the raises iStock has done in the past. Just the way you mention about upselling from free to paid content is being presented.

Right now the choice for customers is "cheap package with all the regular content" and "expensive package with basically twice the same images, just from different people".

loop · « **Reply #38 on:** April 04, 2014, 15:47 »

Of course t has a logic. The client likes this file, no matter if good or bad, and he buys it because he just knows he can't get it cheaper anywhere else.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #39 on:** April 04, 2014, 17:04 »

Quote from: loop on April 04, 2014, 15:47

Of course t has a logic. The client likes this file, no matter if good or bad, and he buys it because he just knows he can't get it cheaper anywhere else.

For buying a single file, that's absolutely the case. But when you have to cough up $499, you're going to have to want more than one file

loop · « **Reply #40 on:** April 04, 2014, 17:15 »

Maybe. We will see what happens. At least the usual istock's customers don't seem to be in the bargain hunters category (I say that considering that most of my sales in the last months have been S+). For the new clients they try to atract, it may be different. Don't get my wrong: I'not for subs, I've never been and I never will, unless I begin to sell eight hundred subs a day. Actually, this move, if backfires, could move me to to the independent status. To sell subs, I can sell them at many sites.

lisafx · « **Reply #41 on:** April 04, 2014, 18:30 »

Quote from: KB on March 31, 2014, 17:19

Getty claims that it's a different class of buyers who buy subscriptions, so we won't be losing sales, we'll be getting extra sales that would've gone to SS or other sub sites.

Not to take a shot at you, KB, but at Getty. It is just so quaint to hear yet another agency claim that subscription sales won't erode higher paying credit sales because it's a different market. I just have to laugh. We indies have heard that at every credit site that added subs for years, and in every single case without exception downloads have shifted from mostly credit sales to mostly subs.

This is a BIG part of the reason that my download numbers at most sites have gone up year on year, but earnings keep dropping.

lisafx · « **Reply #42 on:** April 04, 2014, 18:35 »

Quote from: H2O on April 03, 2014, 19:42

Just Joined iStock - Should I stay or Should I go know?

If you go there will be trouble. If you stay it will be double.

KB · « **Reply #43 on:** April 04, 2014, 19:05 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 04, 2014, 18:30

Quote from: KB on March 31, 2014, 17:19

Getty claims that it's a different class of buyers who buy subscriptions, so we won't be losing sales, we'll be getting extra sales that would've gone to SS or other sub sites.

Not to take a shot at you, KB, but at Getty. It is just so quaint to hear yet another agency claim that subscription sales won't erode higher paying credit sales because it's a different market. I just have to laugh. We indies have heard that at every credit site that added subs for years, and in every single case without exception downloads have shifted from mostly credit sales to mostly subs.

This was the exact same argument they made when they introduced TS. And not long after, we heard reports of Getty calling current IS customers and encouraging them to move to TS. So it was a lie then, and it's a lie now.

I think if there's one thing we've learned about Getty that we can trust is true, it's that there's nothing that we can trust Getty says is true.

ShadySue · « **Reply #44 on:** April 04, 2014, 20:16 »

Quote from: loop on April 04, 2014, 15:47

Of course t has a logic. The client likes this file, no matter if good or bad, and he buys it because he just knows he can't get it cheaper anywhere else.

It might take a cost-conscious client some time to figure out/'know' ~~which~~ whose files are really exclusive and whose are merely faux-exclusive.

lisafx · « **Reply #45 on:** April 04, 2014, 22:06 »

Quote from: KB on April 04, 2014, 19:05

I think if there's one thing we've learned about Getty that we can trust is true, it's that there's nothing that we can trust Getty says is true.

So true! That should be embossed on their company letterhead!

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #46 on:** April 05, 2014, 08:15 »

Since it's April and this supposedly has started, has anyone gotten one? Or will it be reported like TS, next month? I wonder what I should be looking for, if and when I get the first Sub DL?

Anyone have one? Anyone know?

wds · « **Reply #47 on:** April 05, 2014, 08:18 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 05, 2014, 08:15

Since it's April and this supposedly has started, has anyone gotten one? Or will it be reported like TS, next month? I wonder what I should be looking for, if and when I get the first Sub DL?

Anyone have one? Anyone know?

Unfortunately, they will be reported after the fact at the end of the month. The only way to possibly see impact is via a noticeable bump in views.

ShadySue · « **Reply #48 on:** April 05, 2014, 08:23 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on April 05, 2014, 08:15

Since it's April and this supposedly has started, has anyone gotten one? Or will it be reported like TS, next month? I wonder what I should be looking for, if and when I get the first Sub DL?

Anyone have one? Anyone know?

wds is correct.
From the original email we were sent on 4th March and in the OP of the subs thread on iS (3rd March)
Royalties will be reported monthly, not in real time. Initially we will be reporting these royalties under the Partner Program.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=359606&messageid=6990296
and in case you also missed it:
Image Subscription downloads aren’t purchased with credits so we will not be calculating RCs with these downloads.
So we are doubly screwed.

runeer · « **Reply #49 on:** April 05, 2014, 08:57 »

No good feeling with the SUB based on iStock(getty)'s track records... Please prove us wrong for just once!!!

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: When do subs start (Read 23203 times)

Jo Ann Snover

luissantos84

H2O

cobalt

MichaelJayFoto

Monkeyman

ferdinand

Jo Ann Snover

ShadySue

Marta

MichaelJayFoto

runeer

MichaelJayFoto

loop

Jo Ann Snover

loop

lisafx

lisafx

KB

ShadySue

lisafx

Uncle Pete

wds

ShadySue

runeer

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors