Quote from: cascoly on September 12, 2014, 12:54

Quote from: Ubermansch on September 12, 2014, 08:48

I just got an email about categories. They will be removed entirely next few days. 

fantastic!

I wonder if they are going to change their mind about wanting us to downsize our files to 2 to 3 megabytes.

Sounds like everything is on the table.

"I like his "kick @ss" attitude. Its all in the posts. read between the lines and stop being so gay."

Uh-oh.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 11, 2014, 06:01

Honestly, I'm not sure why you guys are spending so much time on this.  The site obviously has lots of issues (and the design is very 2000-ish) - I don't even know what "Stocktal is traction" is supposed to mean.  It doesn't sound at all like they have it at all together yet.

Hi Sean, love Stocksy mate. Above average ethos and good look. Not sure about the question but if you have one I'd be glad to respond.

Thanks.

It was directed to the members who seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time tutoring

"By submitting my photographs to Dreamstime.com for publication in their web site galleries for sale, I relinquish all copyrights and rights to sell and/or use the Media that has been submitted.

"Relinquish all copyrights"?  Uh, no thank you.

Put them on the critique forum. Maybe we can help you understand the issue. be warned though...Have thick skin, good thing is we don't bite.....That hard. LOL

Sean is there also offering His advice and doing a good Job helping out with his perspective.

I actually just got two rejections on a set.  One was missing a release, and the other, apparently, I missed a Nike logo on.  So, there are humans there, lol.

... The free image viewer offered without explicit permission from copyright holders.  Ah, the irony.

I fixed the Vetta.

Yes, so the RC charts, which were built on a system that included images selling for up to 170 credits, and which will not be modified, will now only have to accommodate sales of 5 and 15 credits (for images).

Here, I whipped this up as an illustration: http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2014/09/04/istockphoto-change-illustration/

But Lobo said clearly: "You're assuming 1 new credit = $1, but it will probably be closer to $2. So you need to double your numbers. We'll know the exact credit pack prices around sep 15."

So why do you think that 1 new credit will be 8-10 dollars, when he said it will be closer to 2 dollars?

No he didn't.  He said it would be _more_ than $2 .  Obviously, that contributor was getting confused, throwing out the number of $1, when the current price isn't even that little.  So, a bone was thrown that is so far away from the actual price that it doesn't matter.  If it was actually $2, all income would instantly be cut by more than half.

Quote from: Pixart on September 03, 2014, 10:11

Has there been any indication how much new credits will actually cost?

"over two dollars" and no more info until mid-Sept.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362716&messageid=7040982

Obviously it won't be anywhere near $2, as that would equate to one of today's credits costing $.40 at the maximum.

Quote from: goober on September 03, 2014, 05:30

This looks like a big kick in the teeth for the high quality images.

high quality and microstock should never be in the same sentence.

it will force people shooting expensive sets to move to Getty or higher paying agencies, which is where they belong actually.

the microstock's perimeter should not invade their other business, i see the logic in this move and i agree 100%.

This is not at all the impetus for the move.
"Unlike our competitors, iStock is committed to premium content and the exclusive contributors that produce it. Our subscription offerings and our planned a la carte pricing are dependent upon this premium content. We have no incentive to limit the exposure or revenue derived from this content. Simplifying the presentation and pricing of this content will help it better compete for customer revenues going forward and increase contributor yields."

They want to sell the premium content at low prices.  It's the reverse of all the moves done in the past that were applauded that more correctly valued the content.

A good description :
"Actually I'm comparing current credits with (assumed) future credits and then applying it to royalties. The original post says 5 credits today equate to 1 credit in the future. As such 3 credits in the future roughly equates to 15 credits today. An XXXL Vetta will reduce in price from 170 of today's credits to 15 of todays credits, that is an over 90% decrease in credits per sale.

You have chosen not to publish the actual price of future credits, which is fair enough. If we assume the price per new credit is in line with the credit change over rate (i.e. 5 to 1) then the royalty calculation is correct. If the new credit price is lower than 5x the current price, then the decrease in royalties is even worse. If the new credit price is higher than 5 times the current price, then buyers lose out and when buyers lose out, contributors lose out because the buyers buy less images.

Either way, the result is the same.

High value buyers (those who buy big, high value images) win, high quality contributors (those who sell high quality images at large sizes) lose.

Low value buyers (those who buy a few small images occasionally) lose, low quality, high volume contributors win.

iStock is not valuing contributors who contribute high quality images, they're the biggest losers."

There is no way anyone will reach the next level since all images now go for 5 or 15 (old) credits, and the RC system/levels was/were built for sales up to 100+ credits.