pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Will you stay with iStock after the 9/2/14 change or start pulling out?  (Read 15114 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: September 03, 2014, 05:05 »
+2
I'm not sure what I should do with iStock at this point.  I have a very small portfolio there now, but thinking if it's worth it to add more especially with their slow uploading process and the price change.


« Reply #1 on: September 03, 2014, 05:17 »
+4
I removed most of my portfolio a long time ago.  Left enough to get an occasional payout.  Never regretted it, I hate feeling that I have to put up with anything a site does to me.  Just wish everyone felt the same.  I think the vast majority of contributors will carry on uploading until the sites pay them nothing.  There's probably some that would pay them to sell their images  :)

Ubermansch

  • Im designed to think
« Reply #2 on: September 03, 2014, 05:34 »
0
The "point" of the microstock selling business...and its your business, Im not referring to the stock agency, is to upload, promote and earn.

The agency is a lever or "cheap" tool to get search engine coverage, if you use them for anything else, like uhum...upload and hope strategy....your days are un-numbered.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2014, 05:52 »
+4
I am thinking to continue to upload to them, but maybe only the minimum size accepted (1600 x 1200)

Hobostocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #4 on: September 03, 2014, 06:45 »
+4
I removed most of my portfolio a long time ago.  Left enough to get an occasional payout.  Never regretted it, I hate feeling that I have to put up with anything a site does to me.  Just wish everyone felt the same.  I think the vast majority of contributors will carry on uploading until the sites pay them nothing.  There's probably some that would pay them to sell their images  :)

this is true for any other digital product unless you're famous.

are you expecting to sell the same mp3 songs for the next 20 years ? or the same video of the Tour Eiffel ? or your self-published ebooks ?

stock images in particular have a limited shelf-life and window of opportunity depending on your specific niche, the actual oversupply is just shortening the shelf-life but it's not the single root of all evil.


« Reply #5 on: September 03, 2014, 06:50 »
+6
I am thinking to continue to upload to them, but maybe only the minimum size accepted (1600 x 1200)

The problem with that is, if they change their system again, your files will be hanging in thin air. And I think the only thing you can rely on with istock are drastic and unpredicted changes ;)

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #6 on: September 03, 2014, 07:18 »
+5
I am thinking to continue to upload to them, but maybe only the minimum size accepted (1600 x 1200)

The problem with that is, if they change their system again, your files will be hanging in thin air. And I think the only thing you can rely on with istock are drastic and unpredicted changes ;)

Yes, I agree.
Better to wait and see the evolution of the situation.
But honestly, I'm getting tired of these continuous change iStock.

« Reply #7 on: September 03, 2014, 07:31 »
+13
I pulled my portfolio when they told me that paying me 20% is unsustainable.
This move does not make me want to upload again.

« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2014, 07:53 »
-1
For me it depends largely on what their pricing turns out to be.  Sean said it right. The little buyer is likely out...good for other MS sites, bad if they feel a strong connection to Istock.  With Yuri probably driving this change, I see that it is likely prices do go up knowing what Yuri's biggest fuss is over......low micro stock pricing.  If several things happen Istock could be an okay agency from a revenue standpoint:

1. Single credit prices go up more than than old 5 credits. We know that at today's prices 1=5, but the unknown is the future pricing, where 1 might equal 6 or 7 or 8 of todays credit prices. This is the BGIG unknown. This might work for exclusive content but cannot possibly work for cross-microstock content.  This means in my mind it's dead for us non exclusives. 1 credit will probably = 3 of todays credits, effectively cutting our commissions once again.  Yes we stay at, say, 17%.  But 17% of $1 is less than 17% of $3 and I believe that this is what we will see.  Yuri isn't looking out for us, he is looking out for him and by being exclusive he and other exclusives will enjoy the benefits of more macro pricing, not us nons.

2. If #1 happens, they lose buyers so the next question is can they attract new buyers to replace them? There are A LOT of small buyers and they will likely end up over at SS. So I see potential volume as a whole going down if pricing goes up too far.

3. How does Istock differentiate themselves from other micros with essentially the same collection? By touting exclusive content, which isn't available elsewhere. This is really the only way they can differentiate themselves without using legalese that allows them to skirt the truth like they have in the past...."only on Istock".

My summary:
1. Bad for non exclusives
2. Good for exclusives


« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2014, 08:17 »
+3
2. If #1 happens, they lose buyers so the next question is can they attract new buyers to replace them? There are A LOT of small buyers and they will likely end up over at SS. So I see potential volume as a whole going down if pricing goes up too far.
It looks to me like pricing is coming down to compete with SS, I don't see how they would lose buyers to them with the new pricing.  SS charges 9 to 15 dollars per image for image packs, 1 credit at iStock probably will be less expensive than that don't you think?
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 08:19 by tickstock »

« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2014, 08:25 »
0
2. If #1 happens, they lose buyers so the next question is can they attract new buyers to replace them? There are A LOT of small buyers and they will likely end up over at SS. So I see potential volume as a whole going down if pricing goes up too far.
It looks to me like pricing is coming down to compete with SS, I don't see how they would lose buyers to them with the new pricing.  SS charges 9 to 15 dollars per image for image packs, 1 credit at iStock probably will be less expensive than that don't you think?

You are probably correct. I am merely stating this with the unknown of the new pricing. That is the missing link, but yea, I suspect they are trying to, in a large way, mirror Shutterstock...i.e. same price regardless of size. But until new prices are announced we can only have fun guessing. Looks like video gets hosed too.

ShadySue

« Reply #11 on: September 03, 2014, 08:37 »
0
I'm not sure what I should do with iStock at this point.  I have a very small portfolio there now, but thinking if it's worth it to add more especially with their slow uploading process and the price change.

If you are in other agencies whose modus operandus you are happier with, your decision is made for you.
Personally, I'll wait and see (unless there's some radical change around the corner, when I quit iS, I'm out of micro), but you'll know what works for you.

ShadySue

« Reply #12 on: September 03, 2014, 08:37 »
-1
I am thinking to continue to upload to them, but maybe only the minimum size accepted (1600 x 1200)

Is that what you do at the other sites which don't price by size?

« Reply #13 on: September 03, 2014, 08:45 »
+4
I've already been down the road of leaving, and it doesn't accomplish anything. You just make less money.

« Reply #14 on: September 03, 2014, 09:06 »
+6
Leaving IS or Dropping the Crown before finding out if new changes work would be foolish.

« Reply #15 on: September 03, 2014, 09:13 »
+1
honestly? i will wait to see what appends, and I'll decide later, but i think that iStock will be only a subscription site

« Reply #16 on: September 03, 2014, 09:30 »
0
I think just to "wait and see" is the right answer at this point.  No need to run to the exit because my portfolio there is very small now.  They should make it easier and faster to upload if they want more content.

ShadySue

« Reply #17 on: September 03, 2014, 10:11 »
-1
I think just to "wait and see" is the right answer at this point.  No need to run to the exit because my portfolio there is very small now.  They should make it easier and faster to upload if they want more content.
I've never found it difficult to upload there.
Many people (not me) love DeepMeta for uploading, so you could give that a try if you haven't already.

« Reply #18 on: September 03, 2014, 10:15 »
+1
I have a 1 photo portfolio.  I have actually been considering reducing my file sizes on older content and uploading them again to Istock.  It appears that they have not changed anything about their uploading system since I left in 2013 though have they?  Still stitching releases together and uploading a new one for each and every photo, even if there's 50 in a series?

« Reply #19 on: September 03, 2014, 10:23 »
+4
It looks to me like pricing is coming down to compete with SS, I don't see how they would lose buyers to them with the new pricing.  SS charges 9 to 15 dollars per image for image packs, 1 credit at iStock probably will be less expensive than that don't you think?

Exactly. It's obvious that IS are trying to simplify the buyers' experience in order to compete more effectively with SS.

I doubt very much that this is at the suggestion of Yuri. We have yet to see the new pricing architecture but my guess is that it will inevitably mean reduced revenues for both IS and Yuri (all of us actually). This move is simply a further retreat from the previously escalating prices that destroyed IS's market share.

Probably too little and way too late anyway.

ShadySue

« Reply #20 on: September 03, 2014, 10:32 »
-1
Still stitching releases together and uploading a new one for each and every photo, even if there's 50 in a series?
Apparently DeepMeta is a big help with this.

« Reply #21 on: September 03, 2014, 10:40 »
+1
If I am freaking out about submitting 500 old photos (most have 1-10 people in them) - can you imagine what a barrier this would be for a significant photographer to move over and submit their huge collection?   On their competition's site, it is not an issue.... just don't understand why I should have to download third party software to make a 4 billion dollar company work.  (Well actually - I know the backstory and contributors are not the backbone of their company and just not important enough to pamper a little :) )

ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: September 03, 2014, 10:51 »
0
^^ I see where you're coming from. I don't have models, so that's not an issue for me. The release issue has been raised often on the forums since I started and they so far have shown no inclination to change things.
Probably so long as the big hitters in lifestyle keep uploading, there's no incentive for them to change.

BoBoBolinski

« Reply #23 on: September 03, 2014, 10:54 »
+1
I am thinking to continue to upload to them, but maybe only the minimum size accepted (1600 x 1200)
What is the point of that? You've got the image anyway, so why not sell it to the widest possible audience?

« Reply #24 on: September 03, 2014, 10:58 »
+1
Not directed toward me - but...

1.  I have no problem selling subs for 25-28 cents if they are med or smaller.  I do have a problem giving away large files for nothing.
2.  Their priority appears to be to push clients to Thinkstock
3.  There is always a risk that this honest company will give everything away for free.  When it happens again, let it be a less useful version.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
191 Replies
36310 Views
Last post May 22, 2008, 06:07
by rene
19 Replies
4946 Views
Last post July 14, 2012, 04:16
by Sheridan
73 Replies
11541 Views
Last post December 19, 2012, 08:09
by stocker2011
47 Replies
12108 Views
Last post December 12, 2018, 04:53
by Ronib
2 Replies
322 Views
Last post May 31, 2019, 06:36
by rushay

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results