MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: XS Files are GONE  (Read 9606 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 21, 2014, 20:47 »
0
Looks like XS files are gone for good. Not sure how I feel about that.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358810&page=1


« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2014, 21:00 »
+1
So there's nothing you can buy for 1 credit any more?

It's a price hike for bloggers and other users of small images for the web - they have to buy something that's about 800 pixels on the long edge versus about 400 at other sites where you can buy a blog size.

Of all the "simplifications" buyers might have asked for (see the thread for the explanation that this was to simplify the site) they picked this end of the price scale?? Really??

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2014, 21:02 »
+2
So there's nothing you can buy for 1 credit any more?
So 'half of the files half of the price' has now become 'Cheapest file double the price'. That's a catchy tagline.

« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2014, 21:07 »
+4
Everything they do is not for the benefit of the customer or contributor. It's for the benefit of their bank account.

And in iStock's typical non-communicative fashion, they made no announcement.

« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2014, 21:08 »
0
Wow.  Bizarre.

« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2014, 21:15 »
+3
With my own portfolio, I've noticed a trend toward buyers purchasing increasingly smaller file sizes. That makes sense with the decrease of print collateral. Why iStock has decided then to remove the XS files can only mean one thing. It's not to streamline things. It's to force customers to pay more for an image size that is overkill for some of their projects. Looks like this is just one more nail in the coffin on the small mom and pop customers that helped build iStock to what it is today. Don't understand why iStock continues to make short sighted decisions like these that continue to alienate customers and frustrate contributors in order to make a quick buck. I hope I'm wrong (I'm sure Shutterstock doesn't), but I think this will drive even more customers away to other sites.

« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2014, 21:23 »
+4
Not that I support most of what Istock does, but aren't we always complaining about prices being too low? The question in my mind is if they don't lose any of these customers will we somehow still only get the commission of an XS download? I can see them coming up with some tiered BS model that allows them to keep more of the pie.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 21:27 by Mantis »

« Reply #7 on: January 21, 2014, 21:33 »
0
Not that I support most of what Istock does, but aren't we always complaining about prices being too low? The question in my mind is if they don't lose any of these customers will we somehow still only get the commission of an XS download? I can see them coming up with some tiered BS model that allows them to keep more of the pie.
Speak for yourself. I feel the exact opposite. Prices are too high. I think iStock has done a pretty good job of already driving enough people away with multiple price increases.  Prices aren't in line with the rest of the microstock industry. There's too much supply now yet iStock keeps trying to squeeze more profit out of things.

« Reply #8 on: January 21, 2014, 21:40 »
+9
Not that I support most of what Istock does, but aren't we always complaining about prices being too low? The question in my mind is if they don't lose any of these customers will we somehow still only get the commission of an XS download? I can see them coming up with some tiered BS model that allows them to keep more of the pie.
Speak for yourself. I feel the exact opposite. Prices are too high. I think iStock has done a pretty good job of already driving enough people away with multiple price increases.  Prices aren't in line with the rest of the microstock industry. There's too much supply now yet iStock keeps trying to squeeze more profit out of things.

Well I completely disagree with you.  it's not Istock's place to drop their prices to be in line with everyone else.  If everyone thought like that the race to the bottom would be faster. What I believe needs to happen is for the lower priced sites to begin increasing their prices (and commissions).  I know that's asking a lot, but by Istock lowering their prices brings nothing extra to the table.  It won't attract more buyers.  What will attract more buyers is superior service and fair pricing, not gutter pricing.

mlwinphoto

« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2014, 21:58 »
+3
it's not Istock's place to drop their prices to be in line with everyone else...snip..What will attract more buyers is superior service and fair pricing, not gutter pricing.

Well, if it's going to take superior service good luck with that.  Although I do agree that dropping prices would be the wrong move.

« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2014, 03:33 »
+2
What I believe needs to happen is for the lower priced sites to begin increasing their prices (and commissions).  I know that's asking a lot, but by Istock lowering their prices brings nothing extra to the table.  It won't attract more buyers.  What will attract more buyers is superior service and fair pricing, not gutter pricing.

iStock is less expensive than Shutterstock for a single indie image download - which is the simplest entry point. Minimum spend at Shutterstock is $49. iStock images are even less expensive if the buyer goes for credits. And the minimum credit pack is only $19.99. That gets the buyer 5 indie images plenty big enough for web, ebook, pdf etc.

There are many things which are hugely frustrating about iStock. But from a buyer perspective they would definitely currently look like a good deal. (Annual Thinkstock subscription is less expensive too).

Potential DT buyers seem to have to create an account to find out  how much things cost. How do DT prices compare ?

« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2014, 04:37 »
+9
aren't we always complaining about prices being too low?

Isn't it the commissions that are too low? That's probably the main gripe among indes.

« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2014, 09:40 »
+1
it's not Istock's place to drop their prices to be in line with everyone else...snip..What will attract more buyers is superior service and fair pricing, not gutter pricing.

Well, if it's going to take superior service good luck with that.  Although I do agree that dropping prices would be the wrong move.

Totally agree.

« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2014, 09:42 »
+1
aren't we always complaining about prices being too low?

Isn't it the commissions that are too low? That's probably the main gripe among indes.

Yea that's a valid point. All I am saying is that if we are at a fixed commission, say 17%' the commission dollar amount we are paid gets smaller when they lower prices, still 17% but less money.

« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2014, 09:47 »
+2
Dang, no more 9 cent commissions for my images. I'll miss that.

« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2014, 11:07 »
0
Dang, no more 9 cent commissions for my images. I'll miss that.
As was stated in the forum, I don't mind the tiny commission if it keeps customers. The last thing iStock needs is to further alienate people. 

« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2014, 11:11 »
0
Seems like a good move to me.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #17 on: January 22, 2014, 11:22 »
+3
This will certainly lose some customers, and won't actually gain any.
My RPD is getting higher, but my actual dls are constantly going down.
I can see how IF they keep customers through this, indies will benefit a bit, but the stated reason of making things easier for customers is insane, though it was the same reason as they proffered for Collections.
The price differential between Main and 'Signature and above' is far too high, IMO. My port/earnings are still suffering from the bizarre combination of files that were auto-promoted and auto-demoted.

« Reply #18 on: January 22, 2014, 11:27 »
+4
The real problem isn't low prices, it's the disgustingly low royalty rates. Even Apple manages to pay 70% to app creators.

lisafx

« Reply #19 on: January 22, 2014, 11:46 »
+1
Seems like a good move to me.

I don't know if it's a good move overall or not, but I have noticed that the last couple of days my sales were about the same but royalties a bit higher.  I hadn't noticed that XS was gone, but that would explain it.  I must have had a large number of XS sales. 

I'm not going to complain about anything that results in (even slightly) higher royalties to contributors. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #20 on: January 22, 2014, 11:48 »
0
@Lisa: the removal of XS was made sometime in the UK evening yesterday, Tuesday, so presumably Tuesday morning iS time.

« Reply #21 on: January 22, 2014, 11:50 »
0
This will certainly lose some customers, and won't actually gain any ... the stated reason of making things easier for customers is insane

I don't see this losing them customers. As above, iStock is already basically cheaper than SS. And at these low prices, small is small enough for most needs IMO. And I genuinely and sincerely do believe that it makes things simpler and neater. Unnecessary choice adds complexity. Complexity ultimately costs money - e.g. support calls etc.

I agree that many exclusives are definitely not in a happy place at the moment .... but I believe it is possible that if exclusive prices were decreased that might actually decrease exclusive income further. Many assume that closing the gap between exclusive and non exclusive pricing would definitely increase exclusive sales. That seems like it should be true. But how close to parity would the pricing have to be ? Suppose it only slightly increased exclusive volume whilst significantly reducing RPD.

If I am honest I can see that keeping exclusives happy is a much harder thing than we probably think. I hope they manage it.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #22 on: January 22, 2014, 12:05 »
+1
^^ You've got a point, given that some buyers probably search with the price slider pushed right down and if they find what they want, never even look at non-main material (contrary to JJRD's old promise that exclusive files would never be hidden from search. I guess they don't have to keep promises of ex-staffers.)

That said, I have a photo which sold this morning at Signature Plus. It was auto-promoted - I'd never have promoted it, as it's something anyone in the location could photograph. There are two alternatives (uploaded later) with almost the same crop as mine, one a bit darker in Main, and one a bit lighter /cooler colour balance in Signature. So it pleasantly surprises, but mystifies, me that I've had any sales at Sig Plus on that file.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #23 on: January 22, 2014, 12:06 »
0
^^ at the same time, I don't think choice of size is something which confuses many, if any, customers.

« Reply #24 on: January 22, 2014, 12:09 »
-2
We will still be getting .09 commission.  It will just cost the customer 2 or more credits for the same file.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #25 on: January 22, 2014, 12:13 »
+1
We will still be getting .09 commission.  It will just cost the customer 2 or more credits for the same file.
How can you get the same commission if the credit cost doubles?
If you got 9c for a 1 credit sale, won't you get 18c for a 2 credit sale, assuming the customer paid the same for the credits?

« Reply #26 on: January 22, 2014, 12:33 »
+2
Seems like a good move to me.

I don't know if it's a good move overall or not, but I have noticed that the last couple of days my sales were about the same but royalties a bit higher.  I hadn't noticed that XS was gone, but that would explain it.  I must have had a large number of XS sales. 

I'm not going to complain about anything that results in (even slightly) higher royalties to contributors.

It seems like volume is dying. At least, for me it is. So, you might as well get as much as is reasonable out of each sale. Realistically, would any of us really join a new site that offers 1 credit sales at 15-20% royalty rates?

Although, maybe we would. Everybody did jump on board of the Stockfresh train to nowhere.

« Reply #27 on: January 22, 2014, 12:34 »
0
It WILL affect any bloggers that have remained with them.  I bet in the big picture they hope to push the bloggers to Thinkstock.  I've noticed a trend to SS these days with bloggers who actually give credit. 

I mean, logically - why give a daily user an XS when they could give them an XXL for the same price?

ShazamImages

  • ShazamImages.com
« Reply #28 on: January 22, 2014, 13:04 »
0
Did they announce this change anywhere?  If so, did they say why they have done this?

« Reply #29 on: January 22, 2014, 13:06 »
+2
The real problem isn't low prices, it's the disgustingly low royalty rates. Even Apple manages to pay 70% to app creators.

Exactly. Apple pays 70% to the creators of iTunes music and the publishers of iBooks too. Not only that but the content creator get to set their own prices. Now that would make microstock interesting.

« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2014, 13:27 »
+2
The real problem isn't low prices, it's the disgustingly low royalty rates. Even Apple manages to pay 70% to app creators.

Exactly. Apple pays 70% to the creators of iTunes music and the publishers of iBooks too. Not only that but the content creator get to set their own prices. Now that would make microstock interesting.

(I think it's the agents who get 70% from iTunes in most cases and not the artists. But I may be wrong.)

Stock royalties are too low IMO. But the Apple app store comparison is not a good one. Yes independent app developers get 70%. And Apple does well out of the App Store but ...

... the App Store is not the business. Apple is in the business of selling hardware. The App Store is one of the main reasons why people buy Apple hardware. The App Store exists to sell iPhones and iPads. Just like iTunes used to exist, primarily, to help sell iPods. The huge success of iOS today is partly because of the apps.

Apple needs for people to continue to choose to primarily develop for iOS. In some cases the makers of brands other than Apple actually pay developers to produce software for their platforms. That is how important apps have become.

« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2014, 13:36 »
+3
And so, which is the business of Amazon? They also pay 70% to kindle direct writers (provided they sell their books between 2.99 and 11), and they don't ask for exclusivity, they just ask you to don't sell cheaper elsewhere.

Ron

« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2014, 13:42 »
0
Did they announce this change anywhere?  If so, did they say why they have done this?
Link is in the OP

« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2014, 13:58 »
0
And so, which is the business of Amazon? They also pay 70% to kindle direct writers (provided they sell their books between 2.99 and 11), and they don't ask for exclusivity, they just ask you to don't sell cheaper elsewhere.

Yep. A different model from the Apple app store. Yes there are some independents and it is possible to collect 70% - but many semi-independent e-book only authors apparently still prefer not to e-publish independently. In many cases that 70% is not going straight to the writer.

Neither of us here has ever bought an independently published Kindle book. And we buy lots of Kindle books. We have 3 Kindles between us. I buy 2 or 3 books every month. In some cases I also buy a paper copy. How much of that 70% is going to the publisher and how much is going to the writer I do not know.

« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2014, 14:07 »
+5
And so, which is the business of Amazon? They also pay 70% to kindle direct writers (provided they sell their books between 2.99 and 11), and they don't ask for exclusivity, they just ask you to don't sell cheaper elsewhere.

Yep. A different model from the Apple app store. Yes there are some independents and it is possible to collect 70% - but many semi-independent e-book only authors apparently still prefer not to e-publish independently. In many cases that 70% is not going straight to the writer.

Neither of us here has ever bought an independently published Kindle book. And we buy lots of Kindle books. We have 3 Kindles between us. I buy 2 or 3 books every month. In some cases I also buy a paper copy. How much of that 70% is going to the publisher and how much is going to the writer I do not know.

I am a book author and I can tell you that during negotiations for my contract the royalties were so low to me, the author, that I decided to publish the book myself. In my case it was 10% of the price of the book minus the production cost of the book. So in my case it would have been (18.95-4.06)x.1, or $1.49 per book royalty.

« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2014, 15:08 »
0
I am a book author and I can tell you that during negotiations for my contract the royalties were so low to me, the author, that I decided to publish the book myself. In my case it was 10% of the price of the book minus the production cost of the book. So in my case it would have been (18.95-4.06)x.1, or $1.49 per book royalty.

Would that have been for Kindle sales ?

ETA: your unit production cost seems very high.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2014, 15:11 by bunhill »

« Reply #36 on: January 22, 2014, 15:30 »
+2
And so, which is the business of Amazon? They also pay 70% to kindle direct writers (provided they sell their books between 2.99 and 11), and they don't ask for exclusivity, they just ask you to don't sell cheaper elsewhere.

Yep. A different model from the Apple app store. Yes there are some independents and it is possible to collect 70% - but many semi-independent e-book only authors apparently still prefer not to e-publish independently. In many cases that 70% is not going straight to the writer.

Neither of us here has ever bought an independently published Kindle book. And we buy lots of Kindle books. We have 3 Kindles between us. I buy 2 or 3 books every month. In some cases I also buy a paper copy. How much of that 70% is going to the publisher and how much is going to the writer I do not know.

When I joined Istock  it was selling L-size images for $1.50 (less with bulk credit discounts) and the artist got 30c, irrespective of the discount. As far as I'm aware they had a profitable business even back then (and a website that actually worked too). Before the sell-out to Getty in Feb 2006, if I remember correctly, they trebled their prices from when I had started. Since then they must have doubled their prices a few times more, making the business ever more profitable, but never once did they think to increase royalty percentages ... in fact they've only ever done the opposite with the RC system, discounts removed from the contributors' payment, etc, etc.

Microstock was a new market and the fact that the agencies were highly profitable, even when prices were a fraction of what they are today, proves that there was plenty of room to pay contributors a far higher royalty than Istock ever paid. Even DT paid a straight 50% for the first couple of years when all images cost $1.

lisafx

« Reply #37 on: January 22, 2014, 16:38 »
0
I am a book author and I can tell you that during negotiations for my contract the royalties were so low to me, the author, that I decided to publish the book myself. In my case it was 10% of the price of the book minus the production cost of the book. So in my case it would have been (18.95-4.06)x.1, or $1.49 per book royalty.

Wow.  That's terrible.  So many people's dream is to become a "published author".  I don't think it's widely known how little they make these days.  Unless of course you're JK Rowling, Stephen King, or some other big name author. 

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #38 on: January 22, 2014, 16:46 »
+1
I've posted before that a former pupil was signed up by the top agent/manager in his music genre, who also manages, inter alia, one of the absolute top current international pop singers. He apparently negotiated 70%, which I was dumbfounded by.
But it seems that he got that percentage to get him to sign up and is being suppressed. His so-called agent isn't working for him, blocks his ideas, hasn't taken forward the projects that were discussed before the contract was signed, and the FP is stranded trying to scrape a living in ways outwith his contract, and wondering when he'll be able to afford a lawyer to get him out of the contract.

« Reply #39 on: January 22, 2014, 17:06 »
0
Wow.  That's terrible.  So many people's dream is to become a "published author".  I don't think it's widely known how little they make these days.  Unless of course you're JK Rowling, Stephen King, or some other big name author.

There is still some hope. A friend of mine got a pretty good book deal last year. I guess if he becomes famous, I can say I knew him when.

« Reply #40 on: January 22, 2014, 17:44 »
+1
I am a book author and I can tell you that during negotiations for my contract the royalties were so low to me, the author, that I decided to publish the book myself. In my case it was 10% of the price of the book minus the production cost of the book. So in my case it would have been (18.95-4.06)x.1, or $1.49 per book royalty.

Would that have been for Kindle sales ?

ETA: your unit production cost seems very high.

It was high because the book was four color with a varnished cover and good paper, high quality binding. (printed in 2000). Not for Kindle.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2014, 17:48 by Mantis »

« Reply #41 on: January 22, 2014, 18:20 »
+3
10-15% is and has been for ages  the norm for books printed and distributed through bookstores. In this case, the publishing houses assumes all the production, promotion  and disttribution costs of one physical product, the book. You can't compare this with stock photo sites. To compare, you must use e-books sold throught the internet. Internet stores give about 70% to indie writers, and between 40 and 55% if it's the e-book version (the internet provider takes his cut also)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
9829 Views
Last post February 02, 2010, 10:45
by Stu49
2 Replies
2078 Views
Last post August 25, 2014, 21:27
by Elenathewise
Old files are now new files?

Started by dpimborough Veer

4 Replies
3641 Views
Last post November 09, 2014, 16:33
by Pixart
26 Replies
12410 Views
Last post February 12, 2019, 22:28
by captain
7 Replies
4482 Views
Last post May 01, 2019, 17:07
by DiscreetDuck

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors