|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - tickstock
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 ... 151
1226
« on: September 25, 2014, 18:25 »
They are for August.
1227
« on: September 25, 2014, 18:16 »
They look like PP sales. Green on the graph.
1228
« on: September 25, 2014, 18:11 »
Those aren't ELs, just regular Getty sales.
1229
« on: September 25, 2014, 16:19 »
You brought it into the discussion that SS was selling high royalty licenses, I just asked how often you get them. If you get one a year and your RPD is less than $1 it doesn't seem to mean much but if you are getting 10 or 20 a month then that really says something.
BTW SS isn't the only place selling $100+ licenses, GI sales just came in and I'm sure I'm not alone in getting them.
1230
« on: September 25, 2014, 16:04 »
Meanwhile, at Shutterstock...
How many sales for that amount do you average per month?
That's private.
Oh ok. 
1231
« on: September 24, 2014, 17:30 »
Meanwhile, at Shutterstock...
How many sales for that amount do you average per month?
1232
« on: September 24, 2014, 16:06 »
Oh I was wondering, so the deal w/old credits is $8 for each old one?
My Very Best 
KimsCreativeHub.com
No, the old ones are calculated at the price the buyer bought them. If they had 5 credits left and they spent $2 on each of those then the new credit would be worth $10. The problem comes when someone had 1 credit that they paid $2 for then that becomes a new credit worth $2. That's my understanding at least.
1233
« on: September 24, 2014, 16:00 »
RPD not so great, around $8. I guess it will go up some after the old credits are all used up.
1234
« on: September 22, 2014, 09:23 »
Sales on Stocksy are about to pass my BME and there's still a week to go.
Are you saying you are having a BME or just your best month at Stocksy?
1235
« on: September 19, 2014, 08:57 »
Stealing another company's name is not a good way to start.
1236
« on: September 18, 2014, 19:01 »
Seattle must not be a key global market - iStock's searches are generally painfully slow and Shutterstock's generally very speedy. Shutterstock's results look a ton better visually - 2014 vs. 2004
Who cares where the contributors come from or how many there are - it's what's in the collection that counts. it's certainly true that Shutterstock doesn't have all those high priced underexposed fruit slices with black bars on the side (that Getty dumped into the Vetta collection and can now be had for 3 credits apiece).
iStock's subscriptions are much more expensive then Shutterstock's if you look realistically at what you're getting - only 250 images a month if you buy a one month subscription to try it out and $499 (if you want access to the whole iStock collection, including the terrible lime slices) versus $249 for 750 at Shutterstock.
iStock used to appeal to buyers who wouldn't have shopped at Shutterstock and now they're so fixated on perceived losses to Shutterstock being their problem that they're losing all perspective.
Their big problems are making the site unusable for low-medium volume buyers of small-medium images and having a high price collection with no obvious distinction from the low price one.
But you don't have to convince contributors of anything, so making some bulleted list of irrelevant differences won't get one more buyer to the site. I feel bad for friends who are still exclusive and watching their income plummet with this new setup, but I honestly think iStock just hasn't a clue about what's wrong with their site and thus keeps making mistakes in lurching to one "fix" after another, while the private equity vultures hover, looking for ways to cash out.
Maybe you haven't seen the subs plans at iStock but they have one for $1,995 for the year for 750 images/month. http://www.istockphoto.com/plans-and-pricing You can compare it to Shutterstock's year plan that is 25/day for $2,388. http://www.shutterstock.com/subscribe.mhtml?pos=topright
1237
« on: September 18, 2014, 18:28 »
Here's the marketing comparison.
www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
iStock by Getty Images vs Shutterstock comparison:
► iStock has 155K contributors from 165 countries vs. Shutterstock 60K+ contributors from 100+ countries
► Eighty percent of search results in key global markets are returned in under 3 seconds during core business hours on iStock, vs. 30% for Shutterstock
► Video HD from $48USD compared to $79USD for Shutterstock
► Minimum entry is $15USD vs. $29USD (2 images) at Shutterstock
► No daily download limits on subscriptions compared to a 25/daily download limit for Shutterstock
► Signature priced at $24-36USD per image (depending on pack size purchased)
Oh yeah! That must be why Istock is doing so much better than SS. We call all see that for ourselves in our sales and revenue. Not.
Do you actually believe everything you read on the internet (provided it supports your own bizarre choices)?
I don't even know what "Eighty percent of search results in key global markets are returned in under 3 seconds during core business hours on iStock, vs. 30% for Shutterstock" even means? Do you? What exactly are "core business hours" in a global enterprise?
Is it sort of claiming that Istock's website works better than Shutterstock's? What an utter f*&king joke!
I'm not saying iStock is doing better or worse than SS or that I believe all the claims, I put this out there because this is the closest thing to an official response on the topic that anyone is going to get from iStock. This thread is about how the new iStock compares so it seemed relevant to the discussion. In the link there is a way to contact the Getty person who made these claims, you should direct your anger at them not me.
1238
« on: September 18, 2014, 17:28 »
Here's the marketing comparison.
www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
iStock by Getty Images vs Shutterstock comparison:
Marketingspeak! My specialty.
► iStock has 155K contributors from 165 countries vs. Shutterstock 60K+ contributors from 100+ countries
iStock's been around longer; Shutterstock is growing more quickly.
► Eighty percent of search results in key global markets are returned in under 3 seconds during core business hours on iStock, vs. 30% for Shutterstock
Huh? Really stretching, here.
► Video HD from $48USD compared to $79USD for Shutterstock
18 credits on iStock is $175USD compared to $79USD for Shutterstock
► Minimum entry is $15USD vs. $29USD (2 images) at Shutterstock
They had to go with "minimum entry" here because 2 images cost $29 on Shutter and $30 on iStock
► No daily download limits on subscriptions compared to a 25/daily download limit for Shutterstock
750 downloads per month limit on iStock equals 25 per day
► Signature priced at $24-36USD per image (depending on pack size purchased)
See point #4 above. No different collection on iStock...all images are $14.50USD
Edited to spin point #1 a bit better.
1 Your first point, I don't know if those numbers show Shutterstock is growing contributors faster. They might be growing contributors faster but nothing in the stat would suggest it. Shutterstock was founded in 2003 and istock in 2000 so iStock has been around 14 years and SS 11 so lets say 30% longer, you would expect the numbers to be about that difference if the growth was the same, not 150% higher right? A better criticism would probably be that the number of contributors isn't terribly relevant, total images or something else is a better measure. 2 Second point, not sure about that one. Most people say SS has a faster search. There is contact info there so you could ask where they got that one. 3 Third, nonexclusive video is 6 credits not 18, 18 is for exclusive. Compare like to like. $48-65 is the correct price you should be looking at, either way it is cheaper than SS for the same clips. 4 Fourth minimum entry of 1 vs 2. It's true that average price for 1 iStock photo vs. 2 Shutterstock photos is more expensive but you could also say 3 photos for iStock is cheaper on average than 2 photos on SS. 3 on iStock would average $12 at most compared to $14.50 on Shutterstock. 5 Fifth. Buyers don't buy as much on the weekends, I'm sure you know that because they are away from work. Buyers at SS would probably rather roll those unused downloads over into the work week if they could. 6 Last, having exclusive content is a selling point. I'm sure it sounds good to some buyers or they wouldn't be paying contributors more for it would they?
1239
« on: September 18, 2014, 15:36 »
Istock made a choice to cut off these customers, why is anybody's guess.
To compete against Shutterstock, it's clear. Shutterstock is advertising that they always had every size image at the same price, now it's not an advantage for them. Both companies now see that as the most profitable way to do business. I'm glad they aren't trying to compete with the likes of DPC.
My guess would be that they already lost most of these customers to SS, DT, DPC etc.
They must be attempting to maximize returns on the market segment they think will tolerate higher pricing.
I think overall the pricing is a lot lower. Most people on here and buyers were complaining about the prices being too high, they look more inline now with other sites.
1240
« on: September 18, 2014, 15:30 »
Here's the marketing comparison. www.shootonline.com/spw/getty-imagess-istock-disrupt-stock-photo-indy-bold-new-changes?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitteriStock by Getty Images vs Shutterstock comparison: ► iStock has 155K contributors from 165 countries vs. Shutterstock 60K+ contributors from 100+ countries ► Eighty percent of search results in key global markets are returned in under 3 seconds during core business hours on iStock, vs. 30% for Shutterstock ► Video HD from $48USD compared to $79USD for Shutterstock ► Minimum entry is $15USD vs. $29USD (2 images) at Shutterstock ► No daily download limits on subscriptions compared to a 25/daily download limit for Shutterstock ► Signature priced at $24-36USD per image (depending on pack size purchased)
1241
« on: September 18, 2014, 13:08 »
Yep, people discussing going over to DPC :-(
To their credit, DPC has been doing a nice job of responding to disgruntled iStock customers on Twitter and inviting them over to try DPC. Maybe we need to invite some of these customers to try better options if they are intent on leaving iStock.
Sean's doing a lot of inviting, every other post on twitter looks like it's from him. Not sure it will work though, stocksy charges $10 for small images and these people want to pay $5 or less. Might be a good time for iStock to start advertising Vetta and S+ files on Stocksy's feed. Tired of paying $100 for images get Vetta for $30.
1242
« on: September 18, 2014, 11:10 »
Istock made a choice to cut off these customers, why is anybody's guess.
To compete against Shutterstock, it's clear. Shutterstock is advertising that they always had every size image at the same price, now it's not an advantage for them. Both companies now see that as the most profitable way to do business. I'm glad they aren't trying to compete with the likes of DPC.
1243
« on: September 17, 2014, 14:15 »
iStock suddenly raised prices for small images and dropped them for large images.
If only everyone else would alienate all the the customers that pay a couple dollars or less, everything would be great. 
Seriously though, the long term strategy seems decent. If you want really cheap prices, buy subs. If you are not going to buy in bulk, then you have to pay more. Shutterstock kind of works the same way. I can't say all the details of what they are doing are good, but I like the idea of moving away from images for a buck. I wouldn't mind seeing other sites do the same.
I agree. These are the first changes in a while that overall I think are ok. As long as the sales keep going like they have this week so far.
1244
« on: September 17, 2014, 14:09 »
iStock suddenly raised prices for small images and dropped them for large images. Plus, they still have two collections, one three times the price of the other. Many of the buyers who've commented on their FB page were happy with iStock because they liked paying less for small images and didn't think of looking elsewhere. iStock has managed to alienate them while also dropping our earnings. So now both users and contributors will be looking elsewhere.
Shutterstock is advertising to iStock buyers that they have always had one price for all sizes, if that is the reason people are leaving iStock wouldn't that argument keep them from switching?
Why do you assume people will automatically switch to Shutterstock? There are dozens of choices out there that small image buyers will now be looking at. I shudder to think of some of them.
But if they do switch, it will be because Shutterstock offers one price for every image. IStock does not. Some of their images are 3 times the price of others, simply because they're exclusive to iStock, which does not mean they're exclusive to the buyer. Why do you willfully ignore facts that contradict your image of iStock?
I'm not ignoring any 'facts' and this thread is about Shutterstock's response to the iStock changes that's why I'm discussing buyers switching to SS. Exclusive images have more value, not because they are better quality, but simply because you cannot get them anywhere else. They aren't sold at DPC for $1, they aren't on SS. That's why they cost more and buyers are willing to pay for them. These changes have made the price differences between exclusive and nonexclusive images 3x but if you remember a nonexclusive image could be had for 1 or 2 old credits and a Vetta image could cost 170 credits, now it's only 3x the amount. Surely that change is very good for buyers.
1245
« on: September 17, 2014, 13:50 »
iStock suddenly raised prices for small images and dropped them for large images. Plus, they still have two collections, one three times the price of the other. Many of the buyers who've commented on their FB page were happy with iStock because they liked paying less for small images and didn't think of looking elsewhere. iStock has managed to alienate them while also dropping our earnings. So now both users and contributors will be looking elsewhere.
Shutterstock is advertising to iStock buyers that they have always had one price for all sizes, if that is the reason people are leaving iStock wouldn't that argument keep them from switching?
1246
« on: September 17, 2014, 12:59 »
It has never been different at Shutterstock. Their pricing is just not OTT as on Istock. That is the difference. Istock tries to copy Shutterstock but fails miserably, every single time.
Now the pricing is almost exactly the same. The point was more about how people here are saying that one sized pricing is terrible at iStock but Shutterstock is embracing that and like you said they are pointing out that they always had that. If it was such a bad thing for buyers why would Shutterstock be emphasizing that they have always done it? If you read the posts many people are saying that they are going to switch somewhere that is cheaper and offers smaller sized and priced images, I think that is the big complaint, but SS is pointing out that they have always been against that.
1247
« on: September 17, 2014, 12:37 »
I thought the big problem for buyers was that iStock stopped having small sizes and made all sizes the same? It looks like from Shutterstock's advertising that they think it's a positive thing to only offer one size "Download any vector, illustration, and photo any size at no extra cost. It's always been that easy." If not offering small sizes is such a big problem for buyers I would think Shutterstock would capitalize on that, wonder what's going on.
1248
« on: September 17, 2014, 07:04 »
Good thing SS have only photos of fruit on white. Your safe from competition.
It's not all fruit on white but a search for those terms gets nearly 1,000,000 results.
I guess that is 800,000 that IS doesn't have and over 39,000,000 non isolated fruit images.
The point was that I don't shoot things like fruit isolated on white because nearly 1,000,000 images like that already exist on sites like Shutterstock for a cheaper price. There are lots of other subjects that don't make sense shooting either but some subjects aren't covered nearly so extensively and those are the ones where a buyer would have to chose to pay more for an exclusive file or not get what they are looking for.
1249
« on: September 16, 2014, 19:47 »
Good thing SS have only photos of fruit on white. Your safe from competition.
It's not all fruit on white but a search for those terms gets nearly 1,000,000 results.
1250
« on: September 16, 2014, 15:26 »
why not have launched this in a slower month, instead of ruining the only few good month(s) of the year?
Your right, and the same question been asked every year since I been on istock. They always screw up my holiday sales with this BS.
What's screwed up? Everything seems to be working smoothly to me.
Pages: 1 ... 45 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 55 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
