|
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.
Topics - Pickerell
27
« on: September 10, 2014, 12:53 »
Do all images submitted to Dreamstime now have to be submitted on an exclusive basis and not also licensed through any other microstock distributor? A friend who is trying to start submitting to Dreamstime found this in their TOS. "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. I acknowledge that in exchange for this copyright release, Dreamstime.com is obligated to award a fee for each image submitted and accepted by Dreamstime.com and that the agency will set the fee for each assignment."
I though most people who have images on Dreamstime also have the same images with other distributors. It sure sounds like they want exclusive rights to any images submitted now. According to the language the photographer can't even license use of the image directly to a customer himself. Maybe it is just sloppy legal language that they expect no one to read. All comments will be appreciated.
28
« on: July 28, 2014, 13:43 »
The Most Popular search option used to show images in order of popularity based on the number of times each image had been downloaded during its life on the site. The first image shown was the one with the most downloads; the 2nd image was the image with the second highest number of downloads, 3rd had the third highest number of downloads and so on. This was true as late as the end of June 2014.
Now, based on examining the portfolios of contributors with many images licensed more than 1,000 times, I discovered that there is no longer any sequencing based on the overall popularity. For some of the best selling photographers the first image shown will have no more than a few hundred downloads and the second or third images shown may have fewer than 100 downloads. The most downloaded may be 4th or 5th, or buried much deeper.
Since many searches result in more returns than any customer has time to review, many customers have come to rely on the Most Popular search option. Their understanding has been that in a few pages they will see the images with a particular keyword that other customers have found most useful. That may no longer be true.
The new approach certainly has the advantage of surfacing a lot of images that customers may not have seen before, but it doesnt help customers find the images that have been most popular historically. Now, with any particular keyword some of a images that have been downloaded the most times may not be shown until the 400th or 500th return.
The key question is how the search algorithm decides which image to show first. I searched for woman computer office. The sixth most popular images only has 300 total downloads, the 9th has 10,000 and the 10th has 100. Interestingly, on this particular search seven of the top 20 images were created by monkeybusinessimages. What is the logic behind how these images are chosen?
Is Most Popular based on the number of downloads of a particular image in the last 30 or 60 days, or is there no basis on popularity whatsoever? If iStock felt a need to add a new search option why did they have to eliminate the Most Downloads option that many customers have come to rely on? There is no indication that iStock has explained, or intends to explain to customers or contributors -- the logic for this change. Is there a good reason for keeping everyone in the dark?
Does this new search option benefit customers? Most Popular could mean that in the last 60 days an image has been downloaded 10 times and that is more than most other images using the same search term were downloaded during that period. There is no indication as to what that number might be, but the customer will be able to discover that the images has been downloaded 300 or 3,000 times over its lifespan.
The new system may benefit photographers who are pumping lots of new images onto the site, particularly if those new images have been shown for a while near the top of the Best Match search return order. Photographers with a few best selling images, who may have cut back on the number of new images they are contributing could see a major decline in sales as it becomes harder and harder for customers to find their images. There are lots of unanswered questions.
Check out your portfolio and some of the search terms customers are likely to use to find your images.
29
« on: July 11, 2014, 12:43 »
For the last two years I have been tracking the downloads and number of images in the collection of 431 of iStocks leading contributors. Ive been tracking about half of them since 2009. This story ( http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/tracking-istock-downloads) is available for everyones review free of charge and explains the process I went through to gather this data. I believe these contributors represent about one-third of iStocks total downloads since the company was established. Of the total number of contributors 316 are represented exclusively by iStock and only 125 are non-exclusive. It will surprise no one that there has been a significant decline in downloads on average, but it is interesting to see that a few contributors are still doing very well despite the fact that many are seeing significant declines. Of this group 116 (27%) are illustrators, 214 or about half only do photography and the rest I have classified as Photographer/Illustrators. This last group has a lot of images in their portfolios that are clearly illustration, or heavily digitally manipulated, and some pretty straight photography. My guess is that many in this PI group earn their living primarily as graphic designers. They shoot some of their own photographs, and do photography on the side. They also recycle a lot of the illustration work they have done on assignments for clients. This group may also include some who are primarily photographers, but who have an expertise in digital manipulation. One of the interesting things is that on average the pure photographers have about 4 times as many images in their portfolios as the other two groups. The PIs average a little more than the Illustrators who have the fewest. On average Illustrators have 41.58 downloads per image in their portfolios, PIs have 29.82 downloads per image and Photographers only have an average of 21.64 images per download. The Photographer group represents about 55% of all downloads. Another interesting fact is that more images dont necessarily result in more sales. Some of the contributors that have added the most images to their collections in the last two years have seen the slowest growth in downloads. Only about half of the 431 contributors and remember they are among iStocks most successful have grown their portfolios by more than 10% in the last two years. And 94 of the 431, or 22% of these contributors have added no new images to their collections in the last two or they have reduced the size of their portfolios. Many of this 22% have seen greater growth in downloads in the two-year period than some who have been adding lots of images. A detailed analysis of all this is available in 4 stories on Selling-Stock.com. Each story allows you to easily compare numbers and portfolios of individual creators in order to enable readers to get a more granular understanding than just the averages of what has been happening. http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/istock-downloads-first-half-2014http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/three-categories-of-image-creatorshttp://www.selling-stock.com/Article/istock-more-images-does-not-increase-saleshttp://www.selling-stock.com/Article/is-rm-the-only-place-to-find-great-picturesThere is a modest fee for reading these stories because a lot of work was involved in gathering the data.
30
« on: June 19, 2014, 09:20 »
In general, prices and revenue have been declining in the stock photo industry. To a large extent this has been due to oversupply and more and more customers finding the images they need at lower price points. Based on the information Ive been able to collect, I have made estimates of the average 2013 gross license fee for images in the five major price categories RM, traditional RF, Midstock, Microstock and Subscription. My figures can be found in the chart below. 2013 Downloads (est.) Average Price Rights Managed 1,300,000 $298 (my Getty est.) Traditional Royalty Free 3,000,000 $133 (my Getty est.) Midstock 5,000,000 $35.00 to $45.00 Microstock 44,000,000 $6.00 to $7.00 Subscription 130,000,000 $1.25 To get a broader cross section of data and opinion, I have prepared a brief 5 question survey ( http://www.selling-stock.com/Stock-Photo-Pricing-Survey.aspx) to determine if these averages are high or low based on my readers experiences. Many readers will only license images in one or two categories. Please check Not Applicable for the questions where you have no data. I am looking for gross license fee, not your gross income. Since many photographers will not have easy access to gross license fees averages can be determined by dividing your total gross income for the year by the total images licensed. In parenthesis, I have included some sample royalty percentages of the gross my gross license fee calculation to save respondents from having to make their own calculations. Photographers should look at the dollar amount next to their royalty percentage and determine if their average is higher or lower than this number. Exclusive contributors to iStock should consider their sales in the Midstock category. Non-exclusive contributors would fall into the Microstock category. In general I consider gross license fees that range from $1 to $20 for the largest file size to be Microstock and prices that range from $10 for the smallest size to $250 for the largest to be Midstock. Click Here To Complete The Surveyhttp://www.selling-stock.com/Stock-Photo-Pricing-Survey.aspx
31
« on: June 03, 2014, 12:55 »
iStocks sales seem to have been declining over the last few quarters. About 75% of iStock sales are at Midstock prices totaling roughly $180 million in 2013. There are indications that customers and creators are increasingly dissatisfied. One big questions is whether the decline is due to a generally higher priced offering, poor customer service including a less than optimal performing website, or both.
A year ago Yuri Arcurs observed that a rapidly growing percentage of his images were being licensed through low priced subscription offerings. He decided that if the trend continued eventually he would no longer be able to justify continued production of quality people images.
To get higher prices for his work his solution was to go exclusive with iStock and get an average 30 to 40 times the subscription price for each image licensed. I wanted to know how that is working out.
Yuris Numbers
With his original Yuri_Arcurs collection Yuri hit 1.5 million career downloads on iStock sometime in the first half of 2013. He is still listed as having 1.5 million plus downloads which means that he has had something less than additional 100,000 downloads in the last more than one year. When he went exclusive he had about 18,000 images in his non-exclusive collection on iStock.
After going exclusive iStock created a separate Yuri collection. His 1,257 best selling images from the Yuri_Arcurs collection were moved to the Yuri collection. All of them have been downloaded from iStock more than 200 times and 294 of this group have more than 1,000 downloads each. Currently the Yuri collection has had between 54,000 and 55,000 downloads since it was established. It is not clear why there are two collections as all the images in both collections are exclusive.
In the past year Yuri has added a huge number of new images to his collections, many of them produced by photographers who were trained at his 2012 boot camp in Cape Town. Yuri wholly owns all of these images. Now he has 123,751 images on iStock: 45,826 in Yuri_Arcurs and 77,925 in the Yuri collection.
I estimate that in 2013 there were about 179 million microstock images licensed worldwide at the following average price points:
Midstock 5,000,000 $35 to $50
Microstock 44,000,000 $6 to $7
Subscription 130,000,000 $1.25
I asked Yuri if the higher fees from the Vetta and Signature collections is making up for the lost subscription sales from Shutterstock and all other agencies he was dealing with prior to going exclusive.
Yuris Response
While not answering my question directly, Yuri provided some interesting insights on what he feels is the future of Midstock.
Having just spent 3 days at GI in New York and today in Seattle with the IT exes I believe that very interesting things are in the pipeline for IS. Did I have a say in the upcoming changes... Yes - for sure. That being said. The GI top exe dev guys are highly competent and more flexible and agile towards change that I would have imagined. We are working on a set of core site improvements that will dramatically improve user experience and ultimately sales. Only thing that I can say now: Give IS three months and see the changes for yourself.
Shutterstock might be in for a bit more competition than they expected, especially if GI has me project managing the develoment team and we utilize the two things GI has that nobody else has: 1. The best images in the world. 2. The best editors in the world. The best images displays that the world has ever seen is just around the corner. Watch this space!
32
« on: May 19, 2014, 08:36 »
The chart below shows some of the trends in downloads relative to the number of images in the Shutterstock collection since the beginning of 2012. These numbers indicate that while Shutterstock sales per quarter have been steadily growing the number of images in the collection have been growing at a faster pace. Thus, the odds that any given image will be licensed is steadily declining.
To arrive at our percentage number we simply divided the total number of images in the collection into the total downloads. (The image and download numbers below are in millions.) Shutterstock reports the number of images and the number of video clips. We add these two numbers together for our image number since the downloads number includes both images and clips.
Some images are downloaded many times and others not at all. Thus, the actual percentages for each quarter would be much lower, but we suspect the trend would be relatively the same.
Number Number Percent Image
Images Downloads Licensed
Q1 2012 18.8 17.6 94%
Q2 2012 20.2 18.3 91%
Q3 2012 21.7 18.7 86%
Q4 2012 23.3 21.4 92%
Q1 2013 25 22.4 90%
Q2 2013 28 24.3 87%
Q3 2013 31.3 25.4 81%
Q4 2013 34.5 28 81%
Q1 2014 37.1 29.7 80%
33
« on: February 26, 2014, 15:07 »
Does anyone know the percentage of Shutterstock downloads that are illustrations or vectors? Every week I get Shutterstocks Trend Report that shows the top 12 images downloaded during the week. Every week it seems to be dominated by illustrations. This week 10 out of the top 12 are illustrations or vectors. Only 2 photos.
Last year Shutterstock said that a total of 39% of downloads were illustrations (29%) or vectors (10%). Does anyone think that percentage has increased?
34
« on: February 22, 2014, 14:11 »
Can anyone tell me if creators are compensated for the images provided to enterprise customers for FREE comp use?
Shutterstock announced that it had $68 million in gross revenue in Q4 2013 and that approximately 15% (approximagely $10 million) was to large organizations they refer to as enterprise customers. They believe that enterprise customer sales may eventually generate 20% to 25% of gross revenue.
When asked during the investor conference call what causes these large organizations to pay more than the standard subscription rate Thilo Semmelbauer, President & COO said, it's a combination of the license and the rights they get, the indemnification, the service, as well as the functionality that we provide. So as an example, agencies use a platform where they can download what's called comps for free. Comps are sort of full resolution files without watermarks that they can use in their discussions with clients in their workflow. And until their clients decide yes we want to use this image they're actually not paying for that.
So now, when they do license that image it's going to be in the hundreds of dollars per image. So that's a very different type of workflow that's very suited to the agency market. And I won't go through all the other categories but it's an example of how we've customized our offering for publishers, large corporations, agencies. And the price point for the image varies based on some of those suites of things.
Shutterstock says they had 100 million paid downloads in 2013. Are the images that were downloaded for free comp use included in that number, or are they on top of that number?
If they are in addition to the 100 million does anyone have any idea how many were downloaded for comp purposes?
Assume that a big advertising agency downloads 1,000 images for comp purposes and eventually pays a license fee to use 50 of those images.
Assuming that the normal subscription download royalty is paid for each free comp use download, how is it determined what percentage of the total fee paid by the advertising agency is allocated to the 50 images that were actually used?
Shutterstock says it pays out about 28% of gross revenue in royalties, but is a lower percentage paid to those whose images are only used as comps and a much higher percentage to those whose images are actually used?
Does the enterprise licensing become more of an RM model rather than a pay-per-download RF licensing model? Will the business move more toward an Alamy model with the fee charged enterprise customers is based on use?
One of the advantages for creators of the subscription pricing model was that customers were encouraged to download a lot of images because they didnt have to pay extra for each image downloaded. Thus, creators received a very low royalty, but made it up in volume. With the enterprise system customers still get to download all the images they want, but the price they pay depends on who they are, how they use the images, and how many images they end up using.
Will there be any way to track those images that were downloaded for free comp us, or do we trust that customers will tell us when they make any future use even if it is months or years down the road?
35
« on: January 06, 2014, 16:58 »
Based on the downloads of 420 of iStocks most productive contributors with a combined total of at least 50,777,000 downloads, the number of downloads in 2013 were down about 12% compared to 2012. This group of contributors have approximately one-third* of all iStock downloads since the companys founding, Since early in 2009 I have been tracking downloads ( http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/downloads-at-istock-56-lower-than-2010) of 192 of iStockphotos most productive contributors. At the end of 2011, I added 228 additional contributors to my tracking list for a total of 420. All the people on this list have more than 45,000 downloads and 171 of them have more than 100,000 total downloads. At the end of 2012 this group had minimum total downloads of 47,617,000. This was up a minimum of 3,780,000 from 43,837,000 at the end of 2011. Given the way iStock reports downloads the group had a possible maximum of 5,927,000 during 2012. For 2013 the minimum downloads were 3,160,000 and the maximum 5,388,000. Assuming that some contributors has just passed the minimum download number reported and others were about to reach the maximum and go to the next higher level, I averaged the high and low number for each year. The average downloads for 2013 is 4,853,500 and for 2013 it is 4,274,000. Thus, the average downloads in 2013 is about 12% lower than 2012. It should also be noted that downloads declined 46% in 2012 compared to 2011. ( http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/downloads-at-istock-56-lower-than-2010) In July iStock launched a half-price promotion ( http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/istockphoto-cuts-prices) and cut the price of all the content from its non-exclusive contributors in half in the hopes of generating more downloads. Simultaneously, they adjusted the search-return-order in a way that favored their higher priced exclusive collections that remained at the same price. At that time it was reported that 70% of all iStock sales were for exclusive images. After the end of the 3rd quarter there were reports that 75% of all downloads were for exclusive images. While lowering the price of non-exclusive images did not seem to increase sales overall, gross revenue for iStock may not have declined due to the higher percentage of exclusive sales. *As of January 2, 2012 the 38,163 contributors iStockcharts was tracking had a combined minimum total of 114,875,519 downloads since the founding of iStock. These contributors owned over 90% of all the images on iStock. Given the weak sales in the last two years, I believe total iStock downloads are below 150 million. Individual trend data can be found at ( http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/downloads-at-istock-12-lower-than-2012).
36
« on: December 09, 2013, 14:33 »
Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") has reported that Fotolias revenues for the fiscal year ending December 2012 totaled $87 million. Moodys expects revenues to increase in the low to mid-single digit percentage range over the next 12 months. The information has become available because Fotolia is trying to raise $300 million in loans. NEW $200 million 1st Lien Senior Secured Term Loan: Assigned Ba3, LGD3 -- 31% NEW $100 million 2nd Lien Senior Secured Term Loan: Assigned Caa1, LGD5 -- 85% An obligations rated Ba is judged to have speculative elements and is subject to substantial credit risk. The 3 indicates that this obligation ranks at the lower end of this rating category. An obligations rated Caa is judged to be of poor standing and subject to very high credit risk. The 1 indicates this obligation ranks at the higher end of this rating category. Moodys has assigned a Probability of Default rating to both these obligations. The Loss Given Default (LGD) assessments are opinions about expected loss given default on fixed income obligations expressed as a percent of principal and accrued interest at the resolution of the default. In June 2012, KKR acquired ( http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/fotolia-receives-150-million-growth-investmen) a 47% stake (50% voting stake) in Fotolia from TA Associates (31% remaining ownership) and Oleg Tscheltzoff (Co-founder & CEO) in a transaction which valued the company at $455 million. At that time KKR Capital Markets put in place a $150 million senior financing for the company. Proceeds from the new debt instruments are expected to fund the refinancing of existing debt, a $161 million special dividend, and transaction related fees. The rating outlook is stable. Fotolias sales are strongest in the French and German markets and Moodys says the company has a leadership position in these markets. It is not clear that Moodys has examined the sales of Shutterstock and iStock in these markets. Fotolia failed to make an appearance at the recent Microstock Expo in Berlin which drew top microstock shooters from around the world. Shutterstock sent 9 delegates and sponsored several events. Shutterstock has also recently opened an office in Berlin. Fotolia hopes this refinancing will provide more flexibility for it to expand into new markets.
37
« on: October 04, 2013, 15:41 »
Getty Images is finally declaring iStock a Midstock brand given how high they have pushed the prices of iStocks exclusive imagery. I estimate that about 35% of the images on iStock are exclusive. Getty has told debt investors that 70% of iStock revenue is generated from exclusive images and that the gross revenue for the last 4 quarters was about $300 million. In Q2 2013 iStock revenue was down 9% compared to the revenue in Q2 2012. Based on my analysis of the downloads of 192 of iStocks leading contributors ( http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/istockphoto-download-trends) with almost 33 million total download (about 20% of iStocks total downloads since its founding) I believe that iStock had about 10 million total downloads in 2012. Based on first half results downloads for 2013 should be about the same as last year. Downloads are down from about 25 million in 2009 and 2010. Demand For High Priced Exclusive Images It is helpful to get some idea of how many exclusive images are actually being purchased by customers. It is unclear whether the 70% of revenue for exclusive was based on the prices before the 1/2 Our Imagery Is Now 1/2 The Price promotion, but I will assume it was before. The price of a credit ranges between $1.40 and $1.67 depending on the size of the package purchased. For the purposes of my calculation I will use an average price of $1.50 for each credit. Non-Exclusive images range in price from 4 to 18 credits or $6 to $27 Exclusive images range in price from 5 to 28 credits or $7.50 to $42 Exclusive+ imges range in price from 10 to 55 credits or $15 to $82.50 Vetta images range in price from 35 to 160 credits or $52.50 to $240.00 It is interesting to note that Midstock images are often higher priced than Premium images purchased on Gettyimages.com. And on gettyimages.com the customer is not limited to 500,000 impressions before paying an additional Extended License fee. Recently, I was able to analyze the sales figures of several of the major RF contributors to Gettyimages.com. In 2007 when Getty was a public company the average price of an RF license was about $240. In the sales of the collections I reviewed the average price per-image-licensed in 2008 was $219. In 2012 the average price pre-license had dropped to $126. (Images had been added to the collections during the period.) This wouldnt have been so bad if there were more sales, but in fact only about one-third as many images were licensed in 2012 as in 2008. In addition, 25% of the licenses were for prices under $25. Is the Midstock model sustainable when Gettys Premium images are being licensed at these prices? The large file sizes on each of these iStock brands are priced as follows: Non-exclusive - $15.00 Exclusive $25.50 Exclusive+ $60.00 Vetta $112.50 If 70% of iStock revenue is from images that are Only from iStock that means that about $90 million is from the licensing of Non-exclusive images and about $210 million from the three higher priced categories combined. Assuming 10,000,000 downloads, if we divide $90 million by a $15 average price per image we get 6 million downloads of non-exclusive images. If we assume a $60 average price for the various exclusive collections we get 3.5 million downloads of exclusive images. The $60 price may be a little high because relatively few customers may be purchasing Vetta images at their higher prices, or on the whole customers may be purchasing smaller file sizes. We also have to take into account that a portion of that $210 million in revenue comes from the purchase of Extended Licenses. That, or a higher average price in general, could mean that there are fewer exclusive downloads. Non-exclusive RevenueIf iStock licenses the same number of non-exclusive images in the second half of 2013 as they did in the first half their revenue from non-exclusive images will be cut to $45 million since non-exclusive images are being licensed at half price. It is hard to believe they will license as many non-exclusive images since those images now appear so much lower in the search return order. That would mean that in order for Gettys Midstock revenue to grow they will have to license a lot more of their higher priced images. But, are there really more customers that are willing to pay that much? If you disagree with my numbers, or my analysis, please let me know.
38
« on: July 04, 2012, 14:37 »
Ive just completed an analysis of the downloads of 193 of iStocks leading contributors. As of June 30th these people had a total of 30,449,000+ downloads, or about 24% of iStocks total downloads since they the company was founded. On average this contributor group had 22% fewer sales in the first half of 2012 than they had during the same period in 2011. This doesnt necessarily mean revenue was down. Customers may have purchased higher priced images. But a drop of this magnitude in the number of images licensed is cause for concern. To see how I arrived at my conclusions check out http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/trends-at-istockphoto-unit-sales-decline. What do you think?
39
« on: April 25, 2012, 13:00 »
Non-exclusive microstock photographers whose images sell frequently on the current microstock sites may want to take a hard look at PicturEngines new portal and marketing strategy.. ( www.picturengine.comn) This portal has five primary goals: 1 To make it possible for customers to review, in a single search, all the images included in the major RM, RF and microstock collections as well as images from individual direct contributors to PicturEngine. 2 To answer customer complaints about finding the same images on multiple sites. To accomplish this they remove all duplicates from every search and only showing each unique image once. 3 - To give individual contributors priority over distributors. 4 To allow individual photographers to set the price for the use of their images. 5 To pay photographers 100% of the fees collected for the use of their images. For more information check out my Selling-Stock.com article ( http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/picturengine-a-unique-portal-for-microstocker) which is available for free for microstockers to review.
40
« on: February 14, 2012, 11:00 »
I just did an analysis of the top 500 iStock contributors in terms of career downloads. This 1/200th of iStocks contributors have 46% of the companys total downloads. Only 70% of these contributors are photographers. 30% list themselves as Designers, Illustrators, IT or Other. Is the demand for illustration relative to photography growing?
Shutterstock says they licensed 16 million vector illustrations in 2011 which represented 32% of all the images they licensed. Most of the people commenting on this site seem to be photographers. Are we hearing from designers and illustrators? What do they think? If customers are tending to use more illustration and less photography how should that change what you shoot?
41
« on: July 22, 2011, 13:16 »
Three months ago iStock launched Photos+. Initially there were some predictions that the increased prices would be offset by lower sales. Has that happened? Maybe the number of units licensed are down somewhat, but revenue is still growing due to the higher prices. What's your experience? Is this benefiting non-exclusive photographers?
42
« on: May 05, 2011, 15:46 »
A non-exclusive photographer who has a lot of good recreation photos on both iStock and Shutterstock contacted me today with the observation that in the last six weeks his images on Shutterstock have been outselling those on iStock 3 to 1. (This is not because of new uploads on Shutterstock.) For the previous two years iStock was outselling Shutterstock 3 to 1. Is anyone else seeing this trend?
It seems to me that there might be at least three reasons for this switch.
1 - iStock has raised its prices, particularly with their exclusive collections and they may have priced a lot of their former customers out of the market.
2 iStock seems to be pushing more exclusive images to the top of the search return order. This makes sense from iStock's point of view because the images sell for higher prices. They also keep their exclusive photographers happy and encourage more to go exclusive. However, because there are not as many low priced images available on the early pages customers may be getting the idea that all of iStock's images are now much higher priced.
3 - Many of the non-exclusive contributors who are also buyers are upset by the reduction in their royalty percentage and when they need to purchase images they may be going to Shutterstock in an attempt to send iStock a message.
Any other idea? What do you think?
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
