Amidst the other changes announced and unveiled last week, iStockphoto also introduced some pricing changes to the new “Main” collection. However, buyers who are drawn in by this news may find it costs them more than expected.
The Baitxanax online no prescription
Last Thursday, iStockphoto announced (and it was effective immediately) that the pricing of the Main collection would be lowered.tramadol online without prescription
Based on what we have learned by watching customer behavior and customer feedback the Main Collection photo pricing is changing considerably.buy tramadol online without prescription
The Main collection, now primarily made up of work from independent artists, would now be priced as follows (original / new) in credits :
- XS 1 / 1
- S 4 / 2
- M 7 / 3
- L 10 / 4
- XL 12 / 5
- XXL 15 / 6
- XXXL 18 / 7
In what appears to be a desperate attempt to regain market interest, iStockphoto has cut their credit pricing on this collection by more than 50% from the week before. Which harkens back to my “Angers Contributors/Confuses Buyers” post from last month. What are buyers to think of such a drastic price change? Were they being ripped off before? Should they email support and request a refund on any images licensed in the last six months under the loose return policy? Are prices going to change again?buy tramadol no prescription
Well, as I said, that’s the bait. Where does the switch come in?
The Switchbuy ambien online without prescription
The pricing, as mentioned, is in credits. Credits are one way of disassociating the actual cost of the license from the perceived cost. Here, a buyer, coming in from Google or elsewhere, may see a large image for 4 credits and think what a great deal that is.valium online without prescriptionbuy xanax online
Users have been conditioned over the years to associate a credit with a dollar. Alas, a new buyer coming in will find that to purchase just that image, a credit is nowhere near a dollar.valium for salesoma online pharmacy
As you can see, to purchase that license for four credits, a buyer must, at the least, spend $50 for a credit pack. Which has a credit valued at $1.67 each – nowhere near $1 ! In fact, even a bulk purchase of a thousand credits prices them at $1.47 each. What has happened here is that independent contributors have been “thrown under the bus” as a draw to try and get buyers to purchase credits they do not need and may never end up using. Sort of a forced “brand loyalty”.buy xanax online no prescription
The buyer does have an option. Last September, iStockphoto finally introduced a cash payment option, where a buyer could pay without purchasing credits. At that time, the “cash” option was valued roughly at slightly more than the number of credits needed times the highest credit price:tramadol for sale
For example, I’m looking at an image that, for a medium size, costs $19 or 10 credits. If someone is buying that image with credits from the 60 credit pack at $1.58 per credit, that image would cost $15.80. Vs. the $19 Standard Pricing cost, it’s definitely not double.buy xanax online no prescription
So, for the cost of convenience, the buyer paid a slight premium over what the license would cost in credits. Well, with the new pricing scheme, iStockphoto has started using the cash option as a way to try and sway the buyer the buyer towards credit packs (and forced brand loyalty). So, our delicious looking large image up above, which would cost 4x$1.67 in credits, or $6.68, now looks very different if you switch the pricing to the cash option:tramadol online no prescriptionxanax online no prescription
That image that the buyer thought was a great deal at “4 credits”, turns out to actually cost $19 when using the cash option, or almost 3 times the price! Even worse, the marketing for the “recommended” credit pack uses the 150 credit / $231 pack. So, for a buyer to get the one image they want at $6.16, they have to outlay over $200 and their flexibility to use other stock agencies for the foreseeable future.
There’s your bait and switch. The lower credit prices and high cash markups are just a way to get buyers to put out large sums on credits that don’t want and may not ever need.
As an aside, this price movement is a particularly bad thing for independent contributors. The royalties that contributors make are based on the number of “credits” that have been used to license their files during the year. These numbers are set in January, based on the sales from the year before.
Now, halfway through the year, not only have all of the independent contributor’s images been moved from higher valued collections to the Main collection during the big “restructuring” but that Main collection has had its pricing dramatically cut. Independent contributors will now likely find themselves making 30-50% less “redeemed credits” this year towards their goals, dropping them to even lower royalty percentages. The charts are unlikely to be modified, as lowering the numbers for independents would cause exclusive contributors’ rates to go up, something which is the opposite of parent company Getty Images’ goal.
You know my line. Look for a company that treats its contributors and buyers fairly and ethically, without all the tricks and shenanigans. Need a suggestion? 🙂