Partner Program successful for some

[michealo]

One IS contributor has reported PP sales of over $300 for January, with over 750 dls.

[John W.]

I have about 350 shots on IS. Half of them are on PP. In January 40% of my IS income came from PP.

[sobm]

but if this is the normal IS sales, and he might earn over a thousand in non-exclusive, 2 thousand in exclusive

[Sean Locke Photography]

The PP is successful for no one, regardless of the money they may have made.

[michealo]

The PP is successful for no one, regardless of the money they may have made.

But wouldn't that have been the attitude of RM photographers at the advent of microstock sites?

[Sean Locke Photography]

The PP is successful for no one, regardless of the money they may have made.

But wouldn't that have been the attitude of RM photographers at the advent of microstock sites?

Nope.  RM photographers were not undercutting themselves purposefully.

[WarrenPrice]

The PP is successful for no one, regardless of the money they may have made.

But wouldn't that have been the attitude of RM photographers at the advent of microstock sites?

Nope.  RM photographers were not undercutting themselves purposefully.

I thought RF photographers came from RM?

[BImages]

The PP is successful for no one, regardless of the money they may have made.

But wouldn't that have been the attitude of RM photographers at the advent of microstock sites?

Nope.  RM photographers were not undercutting themselves purposefully.

I thought RF photographers came from RM?

Mostly not, there's a huge share of amateur photographers there. RM photographers were unwillingly forced to do RF..
Sending all your IS files to PP is simply shooting yourself in the foot. Buyers are not stupid, they will Google your username, and find the cheap place to buy your files.
I used to send my unselling IS files there. It was useless, I'm out completely now.

[gostwyck]

One IS contributor has reported PP sales of over $300 for January, with over 750 dls.

I think you'll find Shank-ali is not actually being truthful or indeed means to be taken seriously. It's what he does __ that and constantly try to talk up the PP of course. For example he also claims the excellent 'Cambridge in Colour' as 'his' business website.

[jen]

One IS contributor has reported PP sales of over $300 for January, with over 750 dls.

I think you'll find Shank-ali is not actually being truthful or indeed means to be taken seriously. It's what he does __ that and constantly try to talk up the PP of course. For example he also claims the excellent 'Cambridge in Colour' as 'his' business website.

Whose website is it?  His profile says he's in engineering and I know he's in the UK.  I mean, obviously the CiC guy writes better and actually uses spaces after punctuation.  And the photography style is totally different. But it seems weird to claim someone else's website as your own :\

[Jo Ann Snover]

Sean McHugh is who sends the e-mail if you subscribe to CiC's newsletter. I am as sure as I can be without knowing that Mr. Shankie has nothing to do with CiC as he poo-poohed an article on it I referred him to way back when. He was wrong about something and I pointed to CiC's tutorial on that subject. He said who had time to read; he just wanted to take photos

[ShadySue]

One IS contributor has reported PP sales of over $300 for January, with over 750 dls.

I think you'll find Shank-ali is not actually being truthful or indeed means to be taken seriously. It's what he does ...

Absolutely, it's the UK sense of humour, somewhere between irony and sarcasm: not meant to be taken seriously.

[Risamay]

it's the UK sense of humour, somewhere between irony and sarcasm: not meant to be taken seriously.

It's the best sense of humor. Being that of the UK, not necessarily Shank in any particular sense 

[lisafx]

One IS contributor has reported PP sales of over $300 for January, with over 750 dls.

Anytime I hear someone who is making (relatively) good sales in the PP, I am always curious how their Istock sales are going during the same period.  Seems like a lot of people who report growing PP sales are also reporting drastic drops in their Istockphoto sales.  Yet they fail to acknowledge any connection between the two...

[jen]

Sean McHugh is who sends the e-mail if you subscribe to CiC's newsletter. I am as sure as I can be without knowing that Mr. Shankie has nothing to do with CiC as he poo-poohed an article on it I referred him to way back when. He was wrong about something and I pointed to CiC's tutorial on that subject. He said who had time to read; he just wanted to take photos

Oh I believe you guys that it's not his site, just confused about why he would claim it was!

[Sadstock]

Sean McHugh is who sends the e-mail if you subscribe to CiC's newsletter. I am as sure as I can be without knowing that Mr. Shankie has nothing to do with CiC as he poo-poohed an article on it I referred him to way back when. He was wrong about something and I pointed to CiC's tutorial on that subject. He said who had time to read; he just wanted to take photos

Oh I believe you guys that it's not his site, just confused about why he would claim it was!

Well, he's just a little different

[Slovenian]

The PP is successful for no one, regardless of the money they may have made.

But wouldn't that have been the attitude of RM photographers at the advent of microstock sites?

Nope.  RM photographers were not undercutting themselves purposefully.

PP brings me 90% of what normal DLs do and I only have just over a third of my photos on PP. And the percentage is rising from month to month. So I really don't care;)

[gostwyck]

PP brings me 90% of what normal DLs do and I only have just over a third of my photos on PP. And the percentage is rising from month to month. So I really don't care;)

You need to be careful as someone's been giving dire warnings about how IS are ripping everyone off with the PP;

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/is-ripping-submitters-off-with-pp/msg0/?topicseen#new

Ooh __ that's one of yours too!

[lisafx]

PP brings me 90% of what normal DLs do and I only have just over a third of my photos on PP. And the percentage is rising from month to month. So I really don't care;)

You need to be careful as someone's been giving dire warnings about how IS are ripping everyone off with the PP;

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/is-ripping-submitters-off-with-pp/msg0/?topicseen#new

Ooh __ that's one of yours too!

Oh my Lord.   

[visceralimage]

PP brings me 90% of what normal DLs do and I only have just over a third of my photos on PP. And the percentage is rising from month to month. So I really don't care;)

You need to be careful as someone's been giving dire warnings about how IS are ripping everyone off with the PP;

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/is-ripping-submitters-off-with-pp/msg0/?topicseen#new

Ooh __ that's one of yours too!

Oh my Lord.   

Oh, Snap!

[Slovenian]

PP brings me 90% of what normal DLs do and I only have just over a third of my photos on PP. And the percentage is rising from month to month. So I really don't care;)

You need to be careful as someone's been giving dire warnings about how IS are ripping everyone off with the PP;

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/is-ripping-submitters-off-with-pp/msg0/?topicseen#new

Ooh __ that's one of yours too!

Oh my Lord.   

Oh, Snap!

Sure I'm looking at it from both sides, not blinded like most of you. It didn't happen to me though. And even if it did, 90% and rising is a good sign

[BaldricksTrousers]

One IS contributor has reported PP sales of over $300 for January, with over 750 dls.

Anytime I hear someone who is making (relatively) good sales in the PP, I am always curious how their Istock sales are going during the same period.  Seems like a lot of people who report growing PP sales are also reporting drastic drops in their Istockphoto sales.  Yet they fail to acknowledge any connection between the two...

Yup. Sean Locke is down enormously. It must be all the stuff he's got on PP.

Take a look at the Feb sales thread on iS. It seems almost everyone is down, regardless of whether they contribute to the PP or not. You can't isolate those in PP, look at their sales drop and say "oh, that's because of the PP" and refuse to compare that with the results for people who aren't in the PP, it's entirely unscientific.

If I remember correctly, Sean's drop in February was 2% more than mine even though he has grown his porfolio by a much larger percentage in the last 12 months than I have.

I suppose some people have bought my stuff on TS instead of paying more for it on iS but there is absolutely nothing in the available figures that shows my iS sales being systematically worse than those of people who are not in the PP.

There's also a logical disconnect between the fact that you contribute religiously to the "buyers leaving iStock" thread, and then attribute PP people's fall in sales to their participation in that programme, not to the departure of buyers (and their departure has never been blamed on TS, it is blamed on the general site problems, price rises, the search order or, rarely, to objections to the way iS treats us).

So sales going down is a bad thing caused by TS and only affecting PP members, while buyers quitting is a good thing that punishes Getty but will not show up as falling sales for contributors.

How was your February, out of interest?

[Risamay]

Well said, Mr. Trousers.

[loop]

In my view, sales fluctuation has a principal cause: best match tweaks. And PP could have a secondary but also significative weight. Las week I got one e-mail of someone asking if she coul find some specific file of my IS folder at TS. Having answered her no, the file sold in IS (L) minutes later

[jen]

Yup. Sean Locke is down enormously. It must be all the stuff he's got on PP.

Take a look at the Feb sales thread on iS. It seems almost everyone is down, regardless of whether they contribute to the PP or not.

Out of curiosity, I went through the sales thread.

People who say they are...
Up: 46 (of these, 27 said BME)
Down: 62
$ Up, DLs Down/Same: 12
Same/Average: 11

So I don't think it's accurate to say almost everyone is down.  Not great, but I don't think it spells doomsday...yet.

(I stopped around page 10 when the conversation went off track.)

[lisafx]

Take a look at the Feb sales thread on iS. It seems almost everyone is down, regardless of whether they contribute to the PP or not. You can't isolate those in PP, look at their sales drop and say "oh, that's because of the PP" and refuse to compare that with the results for people who aren't in the PP, it's entirely unscientific.

If I remember correctly, Sean's drop in February was 2% more than mine even though he has grown his porfolio by a much larger percentage in the last 12 months than I have.

I suppose some people have bought my stuff on TS instead of paying more for it on iS but there is absolutely nothing in the available figures that shows my iS sales being systematically worse than those of people who are not in the PP.

There's also a logical disconnect between the fact that you contribute religiously to the "buyers leaving iStock" thread, and then attribute PP people's fall in sales to their participation in that programme, not to the departure of buyers (and their departure has never been blamed on TS, it is blamed on the general site problems, price rises, the search order or, rarely, to objections to the way iS treats us).

So sales going down is a bad thing caused by TS and only affecting PP members, while buyers quitting is a good thing that punishes Getty but will not show up as falling sales for contributors.

How was your February, out of interest?

You definitely have a point about everyone's sales being down at IS.  I posted my sales in the Feb thread on this site, which I believe you started, and have therefore presumably read?

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/feb-2011/msg187960/#msg187960

As you can see, they are down 12% at Istock since last year, while only down 4% overall.  You will also note that I observed - re: the Istock stats thread - that most of the mature portfolios (diamonds for example) are reporting being down quite a bit.  

http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/feb-2011/msg188067/#msg188067


I am surprised anyone would deny that the implementation of the PP has contributed, in some part, to Istock's apparent decline.  The only thing debatable is how much of that demise is attributable to the PP and how much to the countless other bone-headed moves Istock has made, such as royalty cuts, price increases, confusing collections, etc.  Certainly near total destruction of the search function deserves a large share of the credit.

Obviously, there are a myriad of things contributing to the problems at Istock, most of which contributors have absolutely NO control over.  One of the very few things we CAN control is whether or not we contribute to the Partner Program.  I choose not to do so.  You are free to choose otherwise, and have.  But please don't try to convince anyone that the PP is not any part of the problems at Istock.  I don't even think you believe that yourself.  

[Jo Ann Snover]

Out of curiosity, I went through the sales thread.

People who say they are...
Up: 46 (of these, 27 said BME)
Down: 62
$ Up, DLs Down/Same: 12
Same/Average: 11
...

A lot of the BMEs are from bronze contributors. Given smaller portfolios and sales you get greater variability and a much easier time doubling small numbers. I'm not saying that diamonds are more important than bronzes, but just that it isn't useful when trying to get at the big picture to look at the ups and downs of new and small contributors.

[jen]

Out of curiosity, I went through the sales thread.

People who say they are...
Up: 46 (of these, 27 said BME)
Down: 62
$ Up, DLs Down/Same: 12
Same/Average: 11
...

A lot of the BMEs are from bronze contributors. Given smaller portfolios and sales you get greater variability and a much easier time doubling small numbers. I'm not saying that diamonds are more important than bronzes, but just that it isn't useful when trying to get at the big picture to look at the ups and downs of new and small contributors.

Right, that's true.  Stats from someone like Sean give a much greater overall view of how things are going than stats from someone like me.  But if you're going to analyze the BMEs then we have to look at the WMEs too.   I clicked on a few of the most vocal people in the thread and a lot of them had just a couple hundred files and haven't added any fresh content in a couple of years.  There are a ton of factors at play.
I'm not saying sales aren't bad (it's disturbing when a major player can add 2000 good files and not see any growth), just that I don't think that thread is a great indicator of "everyone's" sales being down.

[BaldricksTrousers]

Yup. Sean Locke is down enormously. It must be all the stuff he's got on PP.

Take a look at the Feb sales thread on iS. It seems almost everyone is down, regardless of whether they contribute to the PP or not.

Out of curiosity, I went through the sales thread.

People who say they are...
Up: 46 (of these, 27 said BME)
Down: 62
$ Up, DLs Down/Same: 12
Same/Average: 11

So I don't think it's accurate to say almost everyone is down.  Not great, but I don't think it spells doomsday...yet.

(I stopped around page 10 when the conversation went off track.)

In the last three pages (after you stopped counting) I make it 17 reporting sales being down (often saying the decline is dramatic) and three saying they are doing well. That takes the total to 49 up and 79 down, which is a hefty majority even if "almost everybody" was inaccurate (after the first page the thread goes downhill very fast and my impression was coloured by the later pages).

[gostwyck]

Right, that's true.  Stats from someone like Sean give a much greater overall view of how things are going than stats from someone like me.  But if you're going to analyze the BMEs then we have to look at the WMEs too.   I clicked on a few of the most vocal people in the thread and a lot of them had just a couple hundred files and haven't added any fresh content in a couple of years.  There are a ton of factors at play.
I'm not saying sales aren't bad (it's disturbing when a major player can add 2000 good files and not see any growth), just that I don't think that thread is a great indicator of "everyone's" sales being down.

Sales at IS are down. They basically announced that much with the reduced 2010 RC targets. Clearly their projections from September proved to be incorrect.

I can tell you what the RC targets will be for 2011 too. Firstly they'll announce 'no change' to the existing targets as they won't want to admit that sales are still falling. Later in the year, probably as late as possible, they will then 'adjust' them downwards yet further in an apparent act of 'generosity'. Heigh-ho.

[BaldricksTrousers]

Obviously, there are a myriad of things contributing to the problems at Istock, most of which contributors have absolutely NO control over.  One of the very few things we CAN control is whether or not we contribute to the Partner Program.  I choose not to do so.  You are free to choose otherwise, and have.  But please don't try to convince anyone that the PP is not any part of the problems at Istock.  I don't even think you believe that yourself.  

I didn't say it wasn't part of the problem. Obviously it is when iStock is trying to redirect buyers there, that's bound to hit the overall sales. Where we differ is that you think it is preventable and I don't. I'm in the "if someone's going to cannibalise my sales it might as well be me" camp.

Curiously, my sales in iS including the PP for 2010 were the same as in 2009 (well, down by 0.01% to be exact) while without the PP they would have been down about 18% year on year, or maybe 16% or 17% to allow for self-cannibalised PP sales).

I had seen your stats in that other thread but I had forgotten.

[lisafx]

I didn't say it wasn't part of the problem. Obviously it is when iStock is trying to redirect buyers there, that's bound to hit the overall sales. Where we differ is that you think it is preventable and I don't. I'm in the "if someone's going to cannibalise my sales it might as well be me" camp.

^^ That's sums it up pretty well.  I recognize holding out is a long shot, but seeing that IS has grudgingly bumped up PP royalties does give me some glimmer of hope. 

With sales at IS now as low as .07, the .28 offered at TS look positively generous.  We can probably all agree, though, that once a majority of us are on board at TS, that will undoubtedly start edging toward .07 too.