iStockphoto is now too expensive

Displaying 1 to 19 of 19 matches.
kshock
Posted Mon Oct 1, 2012 3:45PM

I orginally joined iStockphoto years ago for the quality images at low prices. Medium sized photos were $5-8. When Getty bought the company, I knew the prices would be raised, but, didn't think they'd get so far from the original prices like they have. Now most of the images I find here are many times that price, costing upwards of $40-50 per image. Images that were previousy listed for a lot less. 


Very disappointed. You lost me as a customer. 
dcdp
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Mon Oct 1, 2012 5:00PM

Given the customer only gets between 15% and 45% of the amount you pay for an image, it is makes it very hard to finance any sort of a decent shoot when selling medium images for the old price. Remember the contributor has to fund any shoot up front, with no guarantee that any of the images are even going to sell once. That is a big risk for a high production value shoot. The counter argument from the contributor will always be for the buyer to consider how much it would cost to get a photographer/model(s)/make up artist/etc in for a shot or series of shots you require. In the case of a banana isolated on white the production cost probably doesn't justify the price iStock is asking, but then again if you are buying a banana isolated on white there are so many to choose from you just choose the cheapest you can find. However if you're shooting something that does require all of the above then consider how much it would cost to stage that shoot, factor in how much the contributor is getting from you purchase and you'll see that $40-$50 is probably not that expensive for what you are getting.


You might ask, "Why does iStock charge so much when I can get it for almost nothing at *** stock's web site?". While this is true, consider that if you continue buying at those rates where the buyer gets less than 50c for each sale how likely they are to continue self-funding expensive shoots? The simple answer is that they aren't and overall quality will suffer.


Having said all that, even within some sections of the contributor based there is a feeling iStock's prices are too high especially for some collections like E+, Vetta and Agency.


As a contributor, it is sad to see any buyer lost, but on the other hand joining in the race to the lowest price does no one any favours, contributors or customers. Are iStock's prices too high at the moment? Probably "Yes" especially for some shots (although there are almost always alternatives at cheaper prices), are competitors prices too low? From a contributor's point of view, the answer is "Yes."
karenhermannCLOSED
Member is a Bronze contributor and has 250 - 2,499 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Mon Oct 1, 2012 5:07PM

Posted By zoliky:
Rather than thinking about yourself, think about the storage and server maintenance they have to pay. $40-$50 is still nothing compared to the prices on GettyImages.

It's sad to see people coming to this forum and start complaining. It's the easiest thing to do. Also, this topic has been discussed many times. It should be closed.

(Edited on 2012-10-01 17:01:03 by zoliky)



A customer has been lost. They have every right (and should probably be encouraged) to say why.
dcdp
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Mon Oct 1, 2012 5:08PM
Posted By zoliky:
Rather than thinking about yourself, think about the storage and server maintenance they have to pay. $40-$50 is still nothing compared to the prices on GettyImages.

It's sad to see people coming to this forum and start complaining. It's the easiest thing to do. Also, this topic has been discussed many times. It should be closed.

Go iStock! Don't listen to all complainers.

Good job putting a reasoned argument forward to support your case. Labelling a customer a "selfish complainer" is a great way to start a dialogue and help them understand why costs are the way they are. If the easiest thing to do is for a buyer is complain, then the easiest thing to do for a contributor is the same, complain about the buyer.
cobalt
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloads
Posted Mon Oct 1, 2012 8:53PM

The basic idea of microstock or generally digital products in the internet economy is that because files are bought in extremly high volume, the result will work for everyone. Just like you can buy software apps for your mobile phone for 99 cents that took a huge team to program and maybe had a few million of dollars in funding. Also many ebooks that get sold for 99 cents and when the author is widely read, they can get rich much faster than with traditional pricing, because their work is affordable to the consumer masses of the globe.


So I do understand the buyer.


With the much higher prices of course the volume of sales has dropped significantly. We can only hope that our agency has found a competitive sweet spot for prices and downloads.


Getty itself has a different branding concept. The list prices are extremly high, which deterrs the low budget high volume buyer, so the files will overall be more rarely used. Customers paying the high list prices are also buying a certain amount of exclusivity although it is still a RF file. However, as we all know Getty also gives some customers amazing discounts and my sales are often priced at levels similar or even lower as istock.


Finding the right price balance is very, very tricky. 


 
manley099
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Mon Oct 1, 2012 11:10PM
when prices were lower, i sold more images and made more money. now prices are high, sales are down and so are downloads. i am not the only one experiencing this. however corporations have ways to screw over the working class. new ways to lower pay outs to contributors dont help. higher prices for buyers dont help. its all down hill from here or has been since 2008... if only there was a company who can run iStock ran its model back in 2007, all peace would return
aetb
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Mon Oct 1, 2012 11:27PM

So I guess iStock is now more for those super nice images and not for those banana isolated on white. If you consider this, you might just not want to be exclusive and sells different kind of images to different stock companies. My goal was to get exclusive before the end of this year but I truly feel like my images could be accepted elswhere and that I could maybe do more money selling my image on 10 sites instead of one but at higher pourcentage than 15% that I have now. Whatever... I don't feel like doing so, I want to get exclusive and that's why I've remouved my images from other sites as soon as I got my first payment possible. Now... 1 month and I'll really have to be into it and learn how to sell my images.

I think that the question is why is iStock pricy more than anything. When you understand why, I guess you know what to shoot and how to make money out of it. I'll go on that way and try to get better images than what I have now. Try to work on quality since if I do shit... buyers don't look for shit here... they get it cheaper somewhere else... so let's do quality shooting and make moeny out of it !


 


That's my point of view...


20 to go and I'm exclusive !


 
extrudebr
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 10:15AM
/
/This is the worst strategy i've seen.


4 points:

1 • Selling the same pictures of other image banks as 5 to 10 times more expensive. LOSS


2 • A lot of nothing or a bit of a lot?? THIS IS BASIC.. LOSS AGAIN


3 • Before i used to buy images even for layouts or bidings with no compromises. Now I don't buy nothing... i'd only buy if i don't find a cheaper option or with a client approval. Istock is my last image bank option for now. Other stock photos help me out to get my layouts done and approved. Sometimes i get my own photographer to shoot a photo that i've bought from you before for approval.

4 • Contributors and image banks, you all came from Astronomic prices to a low budget new image bank market. When all of this started i think you new about the costs and prices or should have planned for this. Once you have a huge price rise obviously you will only lose with this. - LOSS

For those who think we are complaining, yes we are and we have our rights to do that and you should use our complaints for a better future for all of us.


 


COntributors:
You do an amazing job and help me and too many others a lot, I think your work worth a lot for exlusivity but to find the same pictures i use on someone's else layout is not worth to pay the new prices. So sorry but you've made your choice before and now to get payment for this raise will be difficult. People might come back but it will take a while and only for new stuff which won't be available in other image banks. But they will do their best to find in the cheaper option to don't have to go after istockphoto.

Customer experiences is what marketing are looking foward now, so take this and RETHINk.


 


Again... It's worth more a bird in hand than two flying away. To get a customer is not a easy job so don't lose them.


 


Best!

(Edited on 2012-10-02 10:22:35 by extrudebr)

(Edited on 2012-10-02 10:26:43 by extrudebr)
mikemcd
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Illustration downloads
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 10:18AM

Posted By dcdp:

...You might ask, "Why does iStock charge so much when I can get it for almost nothing at *** stock's web site?". While this is true, consider that if you continue buying at those rates where the buyer gets less than 50c for each sale how likely they are to continue self-funding expensive shoots? The simple answer is that they aren't and overall quality will suffer...


I'm all for a constructive debate over which microstock models are better or worse, but let's try to keep it realistic here. Not very many companies are still paying those low rates you mention, and the ones who are are generally pretty insignificant. It's very rare that I ever see a $0.50 royalty on a sale. My average at istock's biggest competitor is still higher than that, even with subscription sales included in the average.

istock is burning the candle at both ends. They charge industry-high (microstock) prices and pay industry-low percentages to artists. And yet still expect everyone to believe that they're barely hanging on and are just trying to keep things sustainable. Meanwhile dozens of other companies get by just fine on bigger percentages and lower prices.

Buyers are more wise to this than ever before. It used to be common that you'd talk to a designer about stock and they'd say "There are other websites like istock?" Now they know better, and it's going to start to hurt istock more and more going forward.

(Edited on 2012-10-02 10:22:16 by mikemcd)
sjlocke
Member is a Black Diamond contributor and has more than 200,000 Photo downloadsMember is a Gold contributor and has 5,000 - 12,499 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto IllustratorExclusive iStockphoto Videographer
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 10:26AM

Posted By extrudebr:
1 • Selling the same pictures of other image banks as 5 to 10 times more expensive. LOSS

A: iStock has quite a large bank of images you won't find other places at any price
B: You are paying for more than access to an image - you are paying for a license, service, etc. (some of which has admittedly been lacking lately)


2 • A lot of nothing or a bit of a lot?? THIS IS BASIC.. LOSS AGAIN

You lost me on that one. Are you talking our royalty percentage, our market share, what?


3 • Before i used to buy images even for layouts or bidings with no compromises. Now I don't buy nothing... i'd only buy if i don't find a cheaper option or with a client approval. Istock is my last image bank option for now. Other stock photos help me out to get my layouts done and approved. Sometimes i get my own photographer to shoot a photo that i've bought from you before for approval.

That is all certainly your option. You have to choose to work within your constraints or not


4 • Contributors and image banks, you all came from Astronomic prices to a low budget new image bank market. When all of this started i think you new about the costs and prices or should have planned for this. Once you have a huge price rise obviously you will only lose with this. - LOSS

No, actually we didn't all come from a high price market. Micro and its contributors started at a low budget (some may say "non-realistic") level.

Sorry the current levels aren't working for you. Try using the price slider in the search options.
extrudebr
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 10:43AM
Posted By sjlocke:


Posted By extrudebr:
1 • Selling the same pictures of other image banks as 5 to 10 times more expensive. LOSS


A: iStock has quite a large bank of images you won't find other places at any price
B: You are paying for more than access to an image - you are paying for a license, service, etc. (some of which has admittedly been lacking lately)



2 • A lot of nothing or a bit of a lot?? THIS IS BASIC.. LOSS AGAIN


You lost me on that one. Are you talking our royalty percentage, our market share, what?



3 • Before i used to buy images even for layouts or bidings with no compromises. Now I don't buy nothing... i'd only buy if i don't find a cheaper option or with a client approval. Istock is my last image bank option for now. Other stock photos help me out to get my layouts done and approved. Sometimes i get my own photographer to shoot a photo that i've bought from you before for approval.


That is all certainly your option. You have to choose to work within your constraints or not



4 • Contributors and image banks, you all came from Astronomic prices to a low budget new image bank market. When all of this started i think you new about the costs and prices or should have planned for this. Once you have a huge price rise obviously you will only lose with this. - LOSS


No, actually we didn't all come from a high price market. Micro and its contributors started at a low budget (some may say "non-realistic") level.

Sorry the current levels aren't working for you. Try using the price slider in the search options.


 


I know what exactly what istockphoto is and what it offers. I buy from here since 2004 - THE BEST
But i work with marketing and i don't think this is clever.


 



2 • A lot of nothing or a bit of a lot?? THIS IS BASIC.. LOSS AGAIN





You lost me on that one. Are you talking our royalty percentage, our market share, what?




I'd prefer to get 5% of U$ 10.000,00 than 50% of a U$ 100,00 (just a comparison)
All markets are doing that selling a lot for lower prices. Customers Happy buying a lot and companies making a lot of money.


I work with publicity since the imagebank's books was everywhere... Scanning, approving and buying for high prices.
Then came the web and the online galleries with same costs.



Someone has created a way to make it cheaper and to sell more, well, then all changed and the contributors went for this...


I don't get it it now. As i said this is my customer experience and if you are losing me is because you are doing something wrong.


Don't try to explain... make something different than you are doing.


 


Best!


 


 


 
extrudebr
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 10:52AM

Well just to Clarify...

Last time i came to buy from here all pictures were at high prices (50,00 or higher)


Doing a search now i found the same old prices... something has changed...


 


Let's see what will stands...


 


 
EHStock
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 10:56AM

The market is equalizing. Five years ago I, as a photographer-contributor, did well with snapshots and pictures of friends. Today, with the sheer number of images and high quality, I have to hire professional models and find better locations just to make the same amount of money. There are still plenty of bargains here and at other sites, but if you want the best iStock has, it costs more to produce and more to license.


The stock photo market exploded mid-decade, now it's settling down to the new economy. Real Estate is still cheap.
Lobo
This user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.Forum Moderator
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 11:21AM
OOoo, lets see where this goes.
slobo
Member is a Diamond contributor and has 25,000 - 199,999 Photo downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Video downloadsMember is a Bronze contributor and has 125 - 1,249 Audio downloadsMember is a contributor and has less than 250 Illustration downloadsExclusiveExclusive iStockphoto Audio Artist
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 11:28AM
Posted By extrudebr:

I don't get it it now. As i said this is my customer experience and if you are losing me is because you are doing something wrong.



not necessarily wrong but different. Unfortunately, different doesn't work for you.

Posted By extrudebr:

Don't try to explain... make something different than you are doing.


iStock/Getty made a lot of options: Use price slider when searching and you will find images as cheap as 1 credit ($2). There are partner sites with substantially cheaper prices as well.


I can understand that you are used to get premium quality images for $5 a piece not long ago and you absolutely hate to see that some of the same images cost $50 today. When you think of it for a while, you will understand why is that so.
Pulvret80
Member is a contributor and has less than 250 Photo downloads
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 12:36PM

It's still pictures here for 1 credit, like my pictures, when a photo sells alot prices goes up.


So if you want to buy cheap pictures you need to look to photographs that don't sale so good.


 
dcdp
Member is a Silver contributor and has 2,500 - 9,999 Photo downloads
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 2:24PM
I appreciate the buyers who have chimed in here with their points of view. It is always good to hear from buyers in the forum, normally it's just contributors talking to themselves guessing what the buyers are thinking.
shank_ali
Member is a Gold contributor and has 10,000 - 24,999 Photo downloadsExclusive
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 3:22PM
Posted By kshock:

I orginally joined iStockphoto years ago for the quality images at low prices. Medium sized photos were $5-8. When Getty bought the company, I knew the prices would be raised, but, didn't think they'd get so far from the original prices like they have. Now most of the images I find here are many times that price, costing upwards of $40-50 per image. Images that were previousy listed for a lot less. 


Very disappointed. You lost me as a customer. 



I think you should be assured that Istockphoto's prices are quite comparable to other content available on the internet.The company will be well aware of its competitors prices.


There is very good reason to why a designer needs to pay the higher price point for Agency and Vetta files.As for exclusive + files prices,you would be advised to search a little longer and you might be pleasantly surprised to find simliar content at normal prices within the collection.
Lobo
This user has the power to wield the BanHammer, a weapon forged in the fires of hell for that get-off-my-planet quality you can't get anywhere else. You betta reckonize.Forum Moderator
Posted Tue Oct 2, 2012 3:46PM

Posted By kshock:

I orginally joined iStockphoto years ago for the quality images at low prices. Medium sized photos were $5-8. When Getty bought the company, I knew the prices would be raised, but, didn't think they'd get so far from the original prices like they have. Now most of the images I find here are many times that price, costing upwards of $40-50 per image. Images that were previousy listed for a lot less. 


Very disappointed. You lost me as a customer. 

I recall your previous displeasure with the Vetta pricing. We continue to hope you change your mind in regards to our premium collections. Thank you for offering your input rather than just leaving without saying anything.
This thread has been locked.
Displaying 1 to 19 of 19 matches.
Not a member?Join