Author Topic: XS Files are GONE (Read 10840 times)

jsmithzz · « **on:** January 21, 2014, 20:47 »

Looks like XS files are gone for good. Not sure how I feel about that.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=358810&page=1

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2014, 21:00 »

So there's nothing you can buy for 1 credit any more?

It's a price hike for bloggers and other users of small images for the web - they have to buy something that's about 800 pixels on the long edge versus about 400 at other sites where you can buy a blog size.

Of all the "simplifications" buyers might have asked for (see the thread for the explanation that this was to simplify the site) they picked this end of the price scale?? Really??

ShadySue · « **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2014, 21:02 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on January 21, 2014, 21:00

So there's nothing you can buy for 1 credit any more?

So 'half of the files half of the price' has now become 'Cheapest file double the price'. That's a catchy tagline.

jsmithzz · « **Reply #3 on:** January 21, 2014, 21:07 »

Everything they do is not for the benefit of the customer or contributor. It's for the benefit of their bank account.

And in iStock's typical non-communicative fashion, they made no announcement.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2014, 21:08 »

Wow. Bizarre.

jsmithzz · « **Reply #5 on:** January 21, 2014, 21:15 »

With my own portfolio, I've noticed a trend toward buyers purchasing increasingly smaller file sizes. That makes sense with the decrease of print collateral. Why iStock has decided then to remove the XS files can only mean one thing. It's not to streamline things. It's to force customers to pay more for an image size that is overkill for some of their projects. Looks like this is just one more nail in the coffin on the small mom and pop customers that helped build iStock to what it is today. Don't understand why iStock continues to make short sighted decisions like these that continue to alienate customers and frustrate contributors in order to make a quick buck. I hope I'm wrong (I'm sure Shutterstock doesn't), but I think this will drive even more customers away to other sites.

Mantis · « **Reply #6 on:** January 21, 2014, 21:23 »

Not that I support most of what Istock does, but aren't we always complaining about prices being too low? The question in my mind is if they don't lose any of these customers will we somehow still only get the commission of an XS download? I can see them coming up with some tiered BS model that allows them to keep more of the pie.

jsmithzz · « **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2014, 21:33 »

Quote from: Mantis on January 21, 2014, 21:23

Not that I support most of what Istock does, but aren't we always complaining about prices being too low? The question in my mind is if they don't lose any of these customers will we somehow still only get the commission of an XS download? I can see them coming up with some tiered BS model that allows them to keep more of the pie.

Speak for yourself. I feel the exact opposite. Prices are too high. I think iStock has done a pretty good job of already driving enough people away with multiple price increases. Prices aren't in line with the rest of the microstock industry. There's too much supply now yet iStock keeps trying to squeeze more profit out of things.

Mantis · « **Reply #8 on:** January 21, 2014, 21:40 »

Quote from: jsmithzz on January 21, 2014, 21:33

Quote from: Mantis on January 21, 2014, 21:23
Not that I support most of what Istock does, but aren't we always complaining about prices being too low? The question in my mind is if they don't lose any of these customers will we somehow still only get the commission of an XS download? I can see them coming up with some tiered BS model that allows them to keep more of the pie.
Speak for yourself. I feel the exact opposite. Prices are too high. I think iStock has done a pretty good job of already driving enough people away with multiple price increases. Prices aren't in line with the rest of the microstock industry. There's too much supply now yet iStock keeps trying to squeeze more profit out of things.

Well I completely disagree with you. it's not Istock's place to drop their prices to be in line with everyone else. If everyone thought like that the race to the bottom would be faster. What I believe needs to happen is for the lower priced sites to begin increasing their prices (and commissions). I know that's asking a lot, but by Istock lowering their prices brings nothing extra to the table. It won't attract more buyers. What will attract more buyers is superior service and fair pricing, not gutter pricing.

mlwinphoto · « **Reply #9 on:** January 21, 2014, 21:58 »

Quote from: Mantis on January 21, 2014, 21:40

it's not Istock's place to drop their prices to be in line with everyone else...snip..What will attract more buyers is superior service and fair pricing, not gutter pricing.

Well, if it's going to take superior service good luck with that. Although I do agree that dropping prices would be the wrong move.

bunhill · « **Reply #10 on:** January 22, 2014, 03:33 »

Quote from: Mantis on January 21, 2014, 21:40

What I believe needs to happen is for the lower priced sites to begin increasing their prices (and commissions). I know that's asking a lot, but by Istock lowering their prices brings nothing extra to the table. It won't attract more buyers. What will attract more buyers is superior service and fair pricing, not gutter pricing.

iStock is less expensive than Shutterstock for a single indie image download - which is the simplest entry point. Minimum spend at Shutterstock is $49. iStock images are even less expensive if the buyer goes for credits. And the minimum credit pack is only $19.99. That gets the buyer 5 indie images plenty big enough for web, ebook, pdf etc.

There are many things which are hugely frustrating about iStock. But from a buyer perspective they would definitely currently look like a good deal. (Annual Thinkstock subscription is less expensive too).

Potential DT buyers seem to have to create an account to find out how much things cost. How do DT prices compare ?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #11 on:** January 22, 2014, 04:37 »

Quote from: Mantis on January 21, 2014, 21:23

aren't we always complaining about prices being too low?

Isn't it the commissions that are too low? That's probably the main gripe among indes.

Mantis · « **Reply #12 on:** January 22, 2014, 09:40 »

Quote from: mlwinphoto on January 21, 2014, 21:58

Quote from: Mantis on January 21, 2014, 21:40
it's not Istock's place to drop their prices to be in line with everyone else...snip..What will attract more buyers is superior service and fair pricing, not gutter pricing.

Well, if it's going to take superior service good luck with that. Although I do agree that dropping prices would be the wrong move.

Totally agree.

Mantis · « **Reply #13 on:** January 22, 2014, 09:42 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on January 22, 2014, 04:37

Quote from: Mantis on January 21, 2014, 21:23
aren't we always complaining about prices being too low?

Isn't it the commissions that are too low? That's probably the main gripe among indes.

Yea that's a valid point. All I am saying is that if we are at a fixed commission, say 17%' the commission dollar amount we are paid gets smaller when they lower prices, still 17% but less money.

Copidosoma · « **Reply #14 on:** January 22, 2014, 09:47 »

Dang, no more 9 cent commissions for my images. I'll miss that.

jsmithzz · « **Reply #15 on:** January 22, 2014, 11:07 »

Quote from: Copidosoma on January 22, 2014, 09:47

Dang, no more 9 cent commissions for my images. I'll miss that.

As was stated in the forum, I don't mind the tiny commission if it keeps customers. The last thing iStock needs is to further alienate people.

cthoman · « **Reply #16 on:** January 22, 2014, 11:11 »

Seems like a good move to me.

ShadySue · « **Reply #17 on:** January 22, 2014, 11:22 »

This will certainly lose some customers, and won't actually gain any.
My RPD is getting higher, but my actual dls are constantly going down.
I can see how IF they keep customers through this, indies will benefit a bit, but the stated reason of making things easier for customers is insane, though it was the same reason as they proffered for Collections.
The price differential between Main and 'Signature and above' is far too high, IMO. My port/earnings are still suffering from the bizarre combination of files that were auto-promoted and auto-demoted.

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #18 on:** January 22, 2014, 11:27 »

The real problem isn't low prices, it's the disgustingly low royalty rates. Even Apple manages to pay 70% to app creators.

lisafx · « **Reply #19 on:** January 22, 2014, 11:46 »

Quote from: cthoman on January 22, 2014, 11:11

Seems like a good move to me.

I don't know if it's a good move overall or not, but I have noticed that the last couple of days my sales were about the same but royalties a bit higher. I hadn't noticed that XS was gone, but that would explain it. I must have had a large number of XS sales.

I'm not going to complain about anything that results in (even slightly) higher royalties to contributors.

ShadySue · « **Reply #20 on:** January 22, 2014, 11:48 »

@Lisa: the removal of XS was made sometime in the UK evening yesterday, Tuesday, so presumably Tuesday morning iS time.

bunhill · « **Reply #21 on:** January 22, 2014, 11:50 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 22, 2014, 11:22

This will certainly lose some customers, and won't actually gain any ... the stated reason of making things easier for customers is insane

I don't see this losing them customers. As above, iStock is already basically cheaper than SS. And at these low prices, small is small enough for most needs IMO. And I genuinely and sincerely do believe that it makes things simpler and neater. Unnecessary choice adds complexity. Complexity ultimately costs money - e.g. support calls etc.

I agree that many exclusives are definitely not in a happy place at the moment .... but I believe it is possible that if exclusive prices were decreased that might actually decrease exclusive income further. Many assume that closing the gap between exclusive and non exclusive pricing would definitely increase exclusive sales. That seems like it should be true. But how close to parity would the pricing have to be ? Suppose it only slightly increased exclusive volume whilst significantly reducing RPD.

If I am honest I can see that keeping exclusives happy is a much harder thing than we probably think. I hope they manage it.

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** January 22, 2014, 12:05 »

^^ You've got a point, given that some buyers probably search with the price slider pushed right down and if they find what they want, never even look at non-main material (contrary to JJRD's old promise that exclusive files would never be hidden from search. I guess they don't have to keep promises of ex-staffers.)

That said, I have a photo which sold this morning at Signature Plus. It was auto-promoted - I'd never have promoted it, as it's something anyone in the location could photograph. There are two alternatives (uploaded later) with almost the same crop as mine, one a bit darker in Main, and one a bit lighter /cooler colour balance in Signature. So it pleasantly surprises, but mystifies, me that I've had any sales at Sig Plus on that file.

ShadySue · « **Reply #23 on:** January 22, 2014, 12:06 »

^^ at the same time, I don't think choice of size is something which confuses many, if any, customers.

fotomine · « **Reply #24 on:** January 22, 2014, 12:09 »

We will still be getting .09 commission. It will just cost the customer 2 or more credits for the same file.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: XS Files are GONE (Read 10840 times)

jsmithzz

Jo Ann Snover

ShadySue

jsmithzz

Sean Locke Photography

jsmithzz

Mantis

jsmithzz

Mantis

mlwinphoto

bunhill

BaldricksTrousers

Mantis

Mantis

Copidosoma

jsmithzz

cthoman

ShadySue

fotoVoyager

lisafx

ShadySue

bunhill

ShadySue

ShadySue

fotomine

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors