Author Topic: That didn't take too long. Response to iStock offerings. (Read 10205 times)

PeterChigmaroff · « **on:** September 17, 2014, 12:24 »

(∞)
One collection – unlimited options
Because there shouldn’t be limits to your creativity.
($)
Skip credits, go for simplicity
Know exactly what you're getting for your money. No confusing math or hidden rules, ever.
(¤)
Size shouldn't matter
Download any vector, illustration, and photo – any size – at no extra cost. It's always been that easy.

Access our entire collection of 40 million high-quality images, handpicked from artists worldwide.

Valo · « **Reply #1 on:** September 17, 2014, 12:29 »

~~Not sure if I understand the thread title in relation to your OP.~~

Its in the Shutterstock section.

Not really a shocking message.

tickstock · « **Reply #2 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.

Valo · « **Reply #3 on:** September 17, 2014, 12:45 »

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #4 on:** September 17, 2014, 12:59 »

Quote from: Valo on September 17, 2014, 12:45

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.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #5 on:** September 17, 2014, 13:30 »

Quote from: tickstock 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.

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.

I think the big two are headed in opposite directions. shutterstock looks for ways to break into Getty's market and sell images for higher prices while iStock offers lower prices to some buyers in an attempt to match Shutterstock.

But what really sets them apart is their approach to pretty much everything. Shutterstock tests before rolling out subtle options that have already proven successful, while iStock runs around like a chicken with its head cut off, making sweeping changes annually that are bound to piss a lot of people off -- right at the beginning of the big selling season.

And I'm realizing I'll have to go back to my day job, because neither approach is helping my earnings.

tickstock · « **Reply #6 on:** September 17, 2014, 13:50 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 17, 2014, 13:30

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?

cthoman · « **Reply #7 on:** September 17, 2014, 14:00 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 17, 2014, 13:30

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.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 17, 2014, 14:04 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 17, 2014, 13:50

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 17, 2014, 13:30
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?

tickstock · « **Reply #9 on:** September 17, 2014, 14:09 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 17, 2014, 14:04

Quote from: tickstock on September 17, 2014, 13:50
Quote from: Shelma1 on September 17, 2014, 13:30
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.

tickstock · « **Reply #10 on:** September 17, 2014, 14:15 »

Quote from: cthoman on September 17, 2014, 14:00

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 17, 2014, 13:30
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.

cthoman · « **Reply #11 on:** September 17, 2014, 14:33 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 17, 2014, 14:15

Quote from: cthoman on September 17, 2014, 14:00
Quote from: Shelma1 on September 17, 2014, 13:30
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.

Overall, I'll probably lose money on it because it is basically a price cut on the vector side, but I can't say I conceptually disagree with what they are doing on the raster side. I actually sell a decent amount of small sized images at Clipartof for $15 a piece, so that price seems in a decent target range.

dirkr · « **Reply #12 on:** September 17, 2014, 16:35 »

Quote from: cthoman on September 17, 2014, 14:00

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 tend to agree to that strategy in general.
My only concern about that is that it's coming from Getty / IS, those greedy s*ckers that tell us that paying 20% to contributors is "not sustainable".

Hobostocker · « **Reply #13 on:** September 18, 2014, 01:43 »

I told you so !

now FT and DT will follow suit as well.

in a few weeks from now the cheap as-s buyers will have nowhere to go, either they buy full res images or they're back on Flickr where they belong.

this is great news for us as it means finally the agencies are trying to raise the bar, it's not much but better than nothing and a step in the right direction.

zstoimenov · « **Reply #14 on:** September 18, 2014, 03:45 »

The next logic question will be how much of the market share are those buyers.

cobalt · « **Reply #15 on:** September 18, 2014, 03:53 »

Quote from: zstoimenov on September 18, 2014, 03:45

The next logic question will be how much of the market share are those buyers.

Just look at your download numbers. The majority of my downloads with my portfolio on istock are small to medium size files. So a huge number of people need simple, small sizes for daily use.

I also buy small sizes for presentations, I don´t need XXXL.

So for these uses, the customers are now forced to add a second agency for small sizes. And personally I don´t think they will go to SS. If you like working with credits, you will go to another credit site.

And if they like the new place, how often will they come back to istock to check their 3 credit offerings?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: That didn't take too long. Response to iStock offerings. (Read 10205 times)

PeterChigmaroff

Valo

tickstock

Valo

tickstock

Shelma1

tickstock

cthoman

Shelma1

tickstock

tickstock

cthoman

dirkr

Hobostocker

zstoimenov

cobalt

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors