It took them six months to decide to keep them the same??

Not the same for me...1,000 credit raise...as in the bar was raised.  Fk me.  11,500 to 12,500.

Quote from: Mantis on June 02, 2011, 16:38

Or just beginning, as I am fairly certain they knew people would begin uploading again at some point.  They knew the anger would would fall prey to sales drops.  They knew they would lose some exclusives and that they would not pull their ports (Joanne is an example), leaving a better revenue generating machine for Istock.  They knew they would lose buyers and that is okay because those buyers who cannot afford Istock prices are not the kind of customers they want. They knew there would be a decline in buyers in the short term with a longer capture rate of buyers who can afford these low-mid stock prices.  They knew that E+, Vetta and Agency (and now P+) would be needed to generate additional revenue from the excommunication of low-tier buyers.  They knew that some of these low tier buyers would migrate to Shutterstock so they created Thinkstock in hopes that a percentage of them would migrate to TS...creating a form of customer retention (thank you sir, may I have another).  Istock knew that a credit system such as what they invented was necessary in order to put flexibility into their revenue generating machine in case one or more of their new strategies failed.  That way they can change the credits "rules", screw the contributors and still meet budget goals...at our expense, of course.  I may have missed a few things but to me....in my opinion, Istock is right where they expected to be and does not consider anything they did a failure.  Slowly, one phase at a time, they are pushing a new pricing model and reinventing themselves.

Sorry but I think you are giving them far too much credit. I think they've been forced into actions to generate short-term profits because H&F don't care about the long-term future. Unfortunately for them it is not working out and they have lost a huge chunk of market-share. The introduction of P+ was not part of some 'master plan' but a knee-jerk reaction to prop up profits and save embarrassment over the RC targets that they have delayed ... and delayed ... and delayed ... announcing. If Istock were a publically-listed company would you be buying stock now? I know I wouldn't. I'd be anticipating lots of profit warnings in the quarters to come and the share price to react accordingly. They've screwed it up.

Could be....it's just interesting to me how everything seems to fit...like the man with five penis's....his pants fit like a glove.

very interesting.
it seems the party is over at iStock.

Or just beginning, as I am fairly certain they knew people would begin uploading again at some point.  They knew the anger would would fall prey to sales drops.  They knew they would lose some exclusives and that they would not pull their ports (Joanne is an example), leaving a better revenue generating machine for Istock.  They knew they would lose buyers and that is okay because those buyers who cannot afford Istock prices are not the kind of customers they want. They knew there would be a decline in buyers in the short term with a longer capture rate of buyers who can afford these low-mid stock prices.  They knew that E+, Vetta and Agency (and now P+) would be needed to generate additional revenue from the excommunication of low-tier buyers.  They knew that some of these low tier buyers would migrate to Shutterstock so they created Thinkstock in hopes that a percentage of them would migrate to TS...creating a form of customer retention (thank you sir, may I have another).  Istock knew that a credit system such as what they invented was necessary in order to put flexibility into their revenue generating machine in case one or more of their new strategies failed.  That way they can change the credits "rules", screw the contributors and still meet budget goals...at our expense, of course.  I may have missed a few things but to me....in my opinion, Istock is right where they expected to be and does not consider anything they did a failure.  Slowly, one phase at a time, they are pushing a new pricing model and reinventing themselves.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I haven't sold a single XL or above all weekend and only a couple on Friday.  I don't see this "sale" having any positive affect on my downloads. 

.

Ditto. Nothing has sparked any obvious bumps in my sales.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=329630&page=1

Sean Locke is working harder to help a buyer than lobo.  The "good luck" comment really means fu...see ya.

Quote from: Mantis on May 22, 2011, 18:46

Sales for me on 123 are the same as BS.  However, 123 sales were dismal compared to BigStock until I went in and put 10 percent of my port into FAVES.  If you haven't done this you should.  I saw decent ramp up in sales, something like 25%.

5%

Is it 5%? My mistake.  Either way it helps to some extent, more so with larger ports.  I have about 2500 images.

Sales for me on 123 are the same as BS.  However, 123 sales were dismal compared to BigStock until I went in and put 10 percent of my port into FAVES.  If you haven't done this you should.  I saw decent ramp up in sales, something like 25%.

Somehow I always liked 123RF, first of all because they don't have categories, second because of a high acceptance rate, and third because of decent sales.
Only once I had to write to support to ask for a re-review.

Just out of curiosity what do you consider "decent sales"?

I just found out about 30 minutes ago that the world was supposed to end on May 21st... tomorrow. Dang, I thought I had at least another year and a half to go. Oh well.

In case its true.. nice meeting all of you here.  

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-12/local/29554018_1_mta-spokesman-kevin-ortiz-doomsday-ad-blitz


Edit: The sad part is I just finished mowing the Yard. Maybe I should have waited.

HAHAHA....I just finished mowing the lawn too.  Painters are coming tomorrow, guess I should cancel.

They may be using views as a 'most downloaded' metric.

There's gotta be more to this. Period.  We are hearing one side, and perhaps, one selective piece of one side, and not the other. I do feel for the guy....2800 images is a lot, especially if they were sellers.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 09, 2011, 09:44

Quote from: stockastic on May 09, 2011, 09:23

I'm thinking this probably doesn't make sense unless we're promised better search placement - and of course there would be no way to verify whether we even got it.  

I'm sure that if IS thought that this plan would boost their numbers and actually cut ours, they'd still be pushing it.  

How can it increase istock's profits without increasing the profits for the photographers?

For now this is the way I see it.  I just don't trust them. 
Oh, I have no idea.  I was just making the point that there's no reason to assume IS even cares if we'd benefit.  Maybe they want to reduce the price spread between vetta/exclusives and the rest of us peasants so their plan to push the high-priced stuff meets less resistance.  Maybe, like Buzbuzzer says, it boosts the short term at the expense of the long term. I would just look at anything they offer contributors right now with the highest degree of suspicion.