Sue is right IMO that it is not clear enough. The eye goes to the words "one year plan" which are bolded next to the headline figure. A lazy reader like me can easily not notice the word "monthly" and fail to realise that other options exist.

It's not lazy reading to take it that way - it's exactly what it means, you can get a sub for $100 a month as long as you pay for a full year.  They don't mention that you can get monthly subs for �124 unless you click on the link, and you won't click unless you are ready to commit for a full year.

It's a grade-A marketing fail.

They should advertise the �124 as the monthly rate and then trumpet the special discount to less than �100 for year-long subscriptions - unless, of course they want people not to buy the subs and to stick to the credits. It's a curious reversal of "bait and switch" they're doing, hiding the bait until you fall for the very expensive option.

Quote from: bunhill on September 26, 2014, 11:14

Sue is right IMO that it is not clear enough. The eye goes to the words "one year plan" which are bolded next to the headline figure. A lazy reader like me can easily not notice the word "monthly" and fail to realise that other options exist.

It's not lazy reading to take it that way - it's exactly what it means, you can get a sub for $100 a month as long as you pay for a full year.  They don't mention that you can get monthly subs for �124 unless you click on the link, and you won't click unless you are ready to commit for a full year.

It's a grade-A marketing fail.

They should advertise the �124 as the monthly rate and then trumpet the special discount to less than �100 for year-long subscriptions - unless, of course they want people not to buy the subs and to stick to the credits. It's a curious reversal of "bait and switch" they're doing, hiding the bait until you fall for the very expensive option.

I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option".  That's only 22 cents an image, if anything it's a very very cheap option.  The other plan is 80 cents an image, 250 at $199.
You can also look at Shutterstock and the default selection, first choice, big savings plan is the $2,388 plan for 25 images a day plan.  That comes to 26 cents per image (probably a lot more since not many people use their full quota or any of it on the weekends). 

Quote from: tickstock on September 26, 2014, 12:15

I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option" etc etc

With respect, I think you are confusing the issue. You must surely see that the subscription offer, as presented, is confusing. Poor presentation makes it seem as if iStock is much more expensive than Shutterstock - unless the customer commits for a one year plan.

It is important to remember that a short commitment (i.e. a month rather than a whole year) can be more important to a customer than the lowest possible price. Or, putting it another way, that a long commitment to any sort of service can put people off.

The one month iStock subscription is actually a really good offer from the customer perspective. It's a cheap way to buy 250 images.

My guess from some of the things SS has said is that the one year plans are by far the most common.  Also the one month plan at iStock is probably worse for buyers than the one month plan at SS, 250 images for $200 compared to 750 images for $249, if I was given that choice I would most likely opt for the 750 images.

Quote from: tickstock on September 26, 2014, 13:28

the one month plan at iStock is probably worse for buyers than the one month plan at SS, 250 images for $200 compared to 750 images for $249, if I was given that choice I would most likely opt for the 750 images.

If you were the customer who Sue quoted then the iStock deal would represent a much better offer. Not many customers actually need 750 images in a month. That's overkill. Price of entry is often (mostly) going to be more important.

The iStock offer has a lower entry price. It's a good offer which they are failing to sell. And it's a better offer even if you need many fewer than 250 images (I doubt many users even need 250 images in a month).

From the pricing on the site iStock already looks like there is a lower price to entry.  At SS it's $249-199 and you look at iStock and see $166.  Wouldn't a buyer that wanted a one month plan still click to see what the other plans are since the year long plan is cheaper than Shutterstock's cheapest plan?  Maybe I'm different than most buyers but I clicked on the choose plan button to see what other plans were offered.  It might be better to label that button 'see all plans'  or something else though.

Quote from: bunhill on September 26, 2014, 13:14

Quote from: tickstock on September 26, 2014, 12:15

I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option" etc etc

With respect, I think you are confusing the issue. You must surely see that the subscription offer, as presented, is confusing. Poor presentation makes it seem as if iStock is much more expensive than Shutterstock - unless the customer commits for a one year plan.

It is important to remember that a short commitment (i.e. a month rather than a whole year) can be more important to a customer than the lowest possible price. Or, putting it another way, that a long commitment to any sort of service can put people off.

The one month iStock subscription is actually a really good offer from the customer perspective. It's a cheap way to buy 250 images.

My guess from some of the things SS has said is that the one year plans are by far the most common.  Also the one month plan at iStock is probably worse for buyers than the one month plan at SS, 250 images for $200 compared to 750 images for $249, if I was given that choice I would most likely opt for the 750 images.

Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year?  Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits?  If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.

Quote from: bunhill on September 26, 2014, 13:14

Quote from: tickstock on September 26, 2014, 12:15

I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option" etc etc

With respect, I think you are confusing the issue. You must surely see that the subscription offer, as presented, is confusing. Poor presentation makes it seem as if iStock is much more expensive than Shutterstock - unless the customer commits for a one year plan.

It is important to remember that a short commitment (i.e. a month rather than a whole year) can be more important to a customer than the lowest possible price. Or, putting it another way, that a long commitment to any sort of service can put people off.

The one month iStock subscription is actually a really good offer from the customer perspective. It's a cheap way to buy 250 images.

My guess from some of the things SS has said is that the one year plans are by far the most common.  Also the one month plan at iStock is probably worse for buyers than the one month plan at SS, 250 images for $200 compared to 750 images for $249, if I was given that choice I would most likely opt for the 750 images.

On the surface, that may look like a better deal.
However, if you don't keep up your sub (in SS parlance, your account 'becomes delinquent') you lose the right to use these images. (iStock has similar restrictions). So you aren't allowed by the licence to stock up on images for future use. How they would monitor that, I can't imagine, but that's the rules.

Quote from: tickstock on September 26, 2014, 13:28

Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year?  Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits?  If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.

I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see.  We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.

So  you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?

Quote from: PixelBytes on September 26, 2014, 14:25

Quote from: tickstock on September 26, 2014, 13:28

Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year?  Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits?  If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.

I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see.  We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.

So  you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?

I never said that.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 26, 2014, 15:41

Quote from: tickstock on September 26, 2014, 12:15

I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option".  That's only 22 cents an image,

It's a "very expensive option" if you only  want 25 microstock images.  It's about $80 per image, not 22c an image.

There are cheaper options if you want 25 images.  I don't think a subscription is what a buyer would be looking at to get 25 images.  Maybe I'm missing your point?

25-30 images is what the originally quoted post was about - a single project. It's not about the theoretically cheapest price for a user who willy-nilly uses up every download they're allowed, it's about the real-world experience of a particular buyer with particular - and quite ordinary - needs.

Edit - for the record, it was this:

Posting here in case it disappears from the iS forum: (added: removed already, which isn't entirely unreasonable as it names the competitor)
"I am a customer and a contributor (granted I don't have many files but I see things from both sides).
I am a web designer and currently working on a new project. I am going to have to purchase around 30-40 images. I don't need massive file sizes, it's all for web and mediums will be enough to produce standard and @2x retina images.
The cheapest I can do this on iStock is �224.75 and that assumes all but 3 images are 'essentials' and not 'signature'. If I go to Shutterstock, it is �139... and I will still have about 30 images left in my allowance."

Quote from: PixelBytes on September 26, 2014, 14:25

Quote from: tickstock on September 26, 2014, 13:28

Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year?  Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits?  If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.

I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see.  We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.

So  you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?

+1 except you are quoting Tickstock not me

Quote from: tickstock on September 26, 2014, 15:49

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 26, 2014, 15:45

Quote from: tickstock on September 26, 2014, 13:28

I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see.  We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.

So  you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?

I never said that.

It's implied in what you said in reply to Pixelbytes' observation.

Yes, I took it the same way. 

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 26, 2014, 15:50

It's implied in what you said in reply to Pixelbytes' observation.

No it's not.   Lots of buyers are getting much cheaper files now, overall the prices have come down since the change.  Some buyers may feel shafted and may not come back even with lower prices but some buyers will probably look at the prices and that's all they will be concerned with.

How do you know that "overall prices have come down since the change"? That depends on a whole lot of data about what the sales volume at different price points was that neither you nor I are privy to.  There's no doubt at all that some buyers are feeling shafted, and with good reason.
So when you say buyers might just look at the price comparison between SS and iS and go for iS based on price alone, in response to Pixelbytes' observation about customers possibly being put off by iStock's record of unilaterally scrapping its deals with buyers and substituting other stuff, you are being obtuse. Istock has made itself unreliable to customers by devaluing/revaluing/messing about with their accounts. That's beyond question.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 26, 2014, 16:08

Quote from: tickstock on September 26, 2014, 15:55

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on September 26, 2014, 15:50

It's implied in what you said in reply to Pixelbytes' observation.

No it's not.   Lots of buyers are getting much cheaper files now, overall the prices have come down since the change.  Some buyers may feel shafted and may not come back even with lower prices but some buyers will probably look at the prices and that's all they will be concerned with.

How do you know that "overall prices have come down since the change"? That depends on a whole lot of data about what the sales volume at different price points was that neither you nor I are privy to.  There's no doubt at all that some buyers are feeling shafted, and with good reason.
So when you say buyers might just look at the price comparison between SS and iS and go for iS based on price alone, in response to Pixelbytes' observation about customers possibly being put off by iStock's record of unilaterally scrapping its deals with buyers and substituting other stuff, you are being obtuse. Istock has made itself unreliable to customers by devaluing/revaluing/messing about with their accounts. That's beyond question.

You obviously feel very strongly about this.  I'm not going to be bullied into agreeing with your position just because you call me names though.  I think I'll step away from this argument before things get too heated.

I'm not bullying you, and I only feel strongly about the truth, regardless of whether it favours iStock, SS or any other company.