pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is there any hope for iStockphoto?  (Read 16793 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #25 on: October 15, 2011, 07:07 »
0

IS is beyond joke and you exclusives are just funny...

Enough with the exclusive bashing already.


« Reply #26 on: October 15, 2011, 07:54 »
0
"I wish we could at least get an interview with Rebecca posted somewhere where she explains what the target group for istock is - mass market, boutique agency for midstock clients or do they want to return to their former dominating market position?"

Actually, I tried several times via sitemail to contact her to do a q/a for my blog.  I think I will actually make some calls when I am back in town to get it going.  If you have any questions to ask, pvt msg me here or post.  But don't expect a quick reply from me as I am on vaca. :)

« Reply #27 on: October 15, 2011, 08:13 »
0

IS is beyond joke and you exclusives are just funny...

Enough with the exclusive bashing already.

Let's face it, exclusives have a bigger stake in their agency and will therefore stand by istock unconditionally, whereas the rest of us are way beyond that idea. To the rest of us, it does seem funny to stand behind someone who doesn't even stand behind you.

« Reply #28 on: October 15, 2011, 08:25 »
0
I think the endgame for Getty is to move away from istock and the higher percentages they have to pay exclusives. If they can switch higher priced sales to agency/vetta on Getty and lower priced sales to PP they pay lower royalties and no RC. Unfortunately in trying to do that they are killing IS and many buyers are moving to rival sites. Getty might actually make more from all this action, but I don't think it is good for artists at all (except perhaps for independents as buyers move elsewhere). I don't think that anyone will publicly admit to this strategy though, so we just have to see what happens.

IS was the one site that consistently pushed prices up but unfortunately at the same time the pushed royalties down.

helix7

« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2011, 08:55 »
0
There's plenty of hope for stock. It's a great business model. Keep over 70% of every sale on average, on a product you don't have to manufacture and only requires server space to warehouse. Site traffic may be dipping, but so what. Prices are up, they're keeping a bigger chunk of the pie, and the company revenues probably aren't suffering. If things were really going badly at HQ, we'd be hearing about job cuts, benefits cuts for employees, etc. Last I heard, that on-staff masseuse was still around, so it sounds like things are humming along normally up there.

The only problem with the stock business model is that we're on the wrong side of it, the side that has to suffer to maintain the status quo for the employees, management, ownership, and investors.

But from the perspective of the company, things are going perfectly.

« Reply #30 on: October 15, 2011, 18:17 »
0
There's plenty of hope for stock. It's a great business model. Keep over 70% of every sale on average, on a product you don't have to manufacture and only requires server space to warehouse. Site traffic may be dipping, but so what. Prices are up, they're keeping a bigger chunk of the pie, and the company revenues probably aren't suffering. If things were really going badly at HQ, we'd be hearing about job cuts, benefits cuts for employees, etc. Last I heard, that on-staff masseuse was still around, so it sounds like things are humming along normally up there.

The only problem with the stock business model is that we're on the wrong side of it, the side that has to suffer to maintain the status quo for the employees, management, ownership, and investors.

But from the perspective of the company, things are going perfectly.

^^Exactly. Great post.

« Reply #31 on: October 15, 2011, 18:48 »
0
one of their biggest issues is that many of their buyers are also contributors.  these are the buyers that are bailing the quickest, if you ask me.  I used to buy (and sell) exclusively with iStock.  When the rates starting soaring, I still contributed, but quit buying there, opting to spend my money elsewhere or creating the photos I needed for designs myself.  Now I'm not an exclusive contributor, though I still sell my work there, I don't buy there. 

I don't think they realized that when they started screwing with their contributors they were also screwing with a huge portion of their buying base.

lisafx

« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2011, 19:10 »
0
I don't think they realized that when they started screwing with their contributors they were also screwing with a huge portion of their buying base.

EXACTLY!  But they should have realized.  They had all that info at their fingertips.

And that business of dismissing buyer complaints if they happened to also be contributors was really a BAD idea. 

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #33 on: October 15, 2011, 19:42 »
0

IS is beyond joke and you exclusives are just funny...

Enough with the exclusive bashing already.

Let's face it, exclusives have a bigger stake in their agency and will therefore stand by istock unconditionally, whereas the rest of us are way beyond that idea. To the rest of us, it does seem funny to stand behind someone who doesn't even stand behind you.

I'm not standing behind anybody. This is a business, Istock is my agent, and it's a business decision for me to be exclusive. If/when exclusivity no longer makes business sense for me then I will need to change my business.

None of us have an ideal situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.

ETC: Spelling
« Last Edit: October 15, 2011, 20:02 by PaulieWalnuts »

« Reply #34 on: October 15, 2011, 19:57 »
0

IS is beyond joke and you exclusives are just funny...

Enough with the exclusive bashing already.

Let's face it, exclusives have a bigger stake in their agency and will therefore stand by istock unconditionally, whereas the rest of us are way beyond that idea. To the rest of us, it does seem funny to stand behind someone who doesn't even stand behind you.

I'm not standing behind anybody. This is a business, Istock is my agent, and it's a business decision for me to be exclusive. If/when exclusivity no longer makes business sense for me then I will need to change my business.

None of us have an idea situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.
+1
Bravo

« Reply #35 on: October 15, 2011, 19:58 »
0

IS is beyond joke and you exclusives are just funny...

Enough with the exclusive bashing already.

Let's face it, exclusives have a bigger stake in their agency and will therefore stand by istock unconditionally, whereas the rest of us are way beyond that idea. To the rest of us, it does seem funny to stand behind someone who doesn't even stand behind you.

I'm not standing behind anybody. This is a business, Istock is my agent, and it's a business decision for me to be exclusive. If/when exclusivity no longer makes business sense for me then I will need to change my business.

None of us have an idea situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.
+1
Bravo

What a totally unexpected response.  ;)

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #36 on: October 15, 2011, 20:03 »
0

IS is beyond joke and you exclusives are just funny...

Enough with the exclusive bashing already.

Let's face it, exclusives have a bigger stake in their agency and will therefore stand by istock unconditionally, whereas the rest of us are way beyond that idea. To the rest of us, it does seem funny to stand behind someone who doesn't even stand behind you.

I'm not standing behind anybody. This is a business, Istock is my agent, and it's a business decision for me to be exclusive. If/when exclusivity no longer makes business sense for me then I will need to change my business.

None of us have an idea situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.
+1
Bravo

What a totally unexpected response.  ;)
Ditto

« Reply #37 on: October 15, 2011, 20:10 »
0
 :D

« Reply #38 on: October 15, 2011, 20:13 »
0
... You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.

I've only been back as an independent since June and one of the nice surprises is how much of my revenue at SS is coming from on demand sales, extended licenses and now the single image sales. On many/most weekdays, my on demand sales (in dollars) are larger than my subscription sales.

I agree that I wish the subscription model wasn't around (and that was one of several factors that initially played into my decision to go exclusive at iStock in 2008), but none of the major sites are pure subscription and DT and SS both have something to offer that makes the unpalatable subscription model go down a whole lot more smoothly.

« Reply #39 on: October 15, 2011, 20:20 »
0
snip
None of us have an ideal situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.

I don't think any of the agencies are wonderous everlasting glory (and I never have) but I agree with you that subscriptions aren't the best model. But like Joann said, my 5 ELs this month, coupled with ODs and subs, makes a big difference.

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #40 on: October 15, 2011, 20:36 »
0
... You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.

I've only been back as an independent since June and one of the nice surprises is how much of my revenue at SS is coming from on demand sales, extended licenses and now the single image sales. On many/most weekdays, my on demand sales (in dollars) are larger than my subscription sales.

I agree that I wish the subscription model wasn't around (and that was one of several factors that initially played into my decision to go exclusive at iStock in 2008), but none of the major sites are pure subscription and DT and SS both have something to offer that makes the unpalatable subscription model go down a whole lot more smoothly.

Yes, and the SS single image sales thing looks promising for a lot of reasons. But it's also another risk from a business standpoint. If SS takes the majority market share and everybody loves them... doesn't this sound familiar? Like IS up until maybe 2009? They could do no wrong and then everything changed. 

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #41 on: October 15, 2011, 20:38 »
0
snip
None of us have an ideal situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.

I don't think any of the agencies are wonderous everlasting glory (and I never have) but I agree with you that subscriptions aren't the best model. But like Joann said, my 5 ELs this month, coupled with ODs and subs, makes a big difference.

Not disagreeing at all. If IS goes into a downward spiral for me, and SS continues growing single sales, business is business.

nruboc

« Reply #42 on: October 15, 2011, 20:52 »
0
snip
None of us have an ideal situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.

I don't think any of the agencies are wonderous everlasting glory (and I never have) but I agree with you that subscriptions aren't the best model. But like Joann said, my 5 ELs this month, coupled with ODs and subs, makes a big difference.

ShutterStock is, indeed, the wonderous everlasting glory

« Reply #43 on: October 15, 2011, 21:23 »
0
ShutterStock is, indeed, the wonderous everlasting glory

For a minute, anyway.  :D

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #44 on: October 16, 2011, 02:14 »
0
If SS takes the majority market share and everybody loves them... doesn't this sound familiar? Like IS up until maybe 2009? They could do no wrong and then everything changed.  

This is the reason why we (independents) must support all fair agencies, regardless of current sales level.

SS it the best site for me in every possible way at present, but nevertheless I am uploading my port to small sites as well - as long as their upload process is easy: it doesn't matter if I earn $1 per month, it's an insurance for the future and a way to prevent complete monopoly.

Anyway, all "low earners" are collectively representing between 5% and 7% every month: not something to throw away easily.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2011, 02:22 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #45 on: October 16, 2011, 02:57 »
0
I'm not sure if it is in our best interest to push all the buyers away from Istock.  If earnings decreased too much for the exclusives then maybe they would decide to become independent and compete with us for sales at all the other agencies. At one particular agency I have amazing placement in the searches but I'm sure that would drop if some of the better Istock exclusives joined.

« Reply #46 on: October 16, 2011, 03:13 »
0

IS is beyond joke and you exclusives are just funny...

Enough with the exclusive bashing already.

Let's face it, exclusives have a bigger stake in their agency and will therefore stand by istock unconditionally, whereas the rest of us are way beyond that idea. To the rest of us, it does seem funny to stand behind someone who doesn't even stand behind you.

I'm not standing behind anybody. This is a business, Istock is my agent, and it's a business decision for me to be exclusive. If/when exclusivity no longer makes business sense for me then I will need to change my business.

None of us have an ideal situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.

ETC: Spelling
SS is much more than a subscription site now.  Just on demand downloads have overtaken all the other sites except istock for me.  If I include EL's, they make more than istock.  I haven't uploaded much this year but I still had a BME.  They aren't perfect, there are still changes I would like to see but I have no complaints about the way they made changes that have increased my earnings.  Other sites have made changes but I always seem worse off, istock being the biggest culprit.

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #47 on: October 16, 2011, 03:49 »
0
I'm not sure if it is in our best interest to push all the buyers away from Istock.  If earnings decreased too much for the exclusives then maybe they would decide to become independent and compete with us for sales at all the other agencies. At one particular agency I have amazing placement in the searches but I'm sure that would drop if some of the better Istock exclusives joined.
You're making a pretty big assumption that exclusives at iStockphoto are 'better' photographers than non-exclusives. Clearly they are not (based on total downloads each month and each quarter) - you can do the math yourself - visit the contributor lounge and review trends. This current quarter exclusives (again) only have 33% ranking in the most downloaded images. 66% of the largest downloaded images are from non-exclusive contributors.

If you agree with the principle that customers download what they consider to be the best or at least better photographs than others on the same site and that equates to 2:1 in favor of non-exclusives the answer is clear. The 'better' photographers are non-exclusive contributors. Clearly that statistic supports that position.

As far as 'pushing' buyers away from iStockphoto is concerned at the end of the day buyers make their own decisions based on their own real-life experiences with iStockphoto. Three of my biggest clients have all switched their accounts in the last two months to DT and SS where before they purchased virtually everything from iSP - and it had nothing to do with me - they felt they were being ripped off price-wise and 'forced to trawl through overpriced collections' etc. I mentioned the price filter to them and they simply were not interested.

If exclusives start to leave the sinking-iSP ship in droves as you predict (might happen), no problem. Independents have good ranking positions with really good images in all the other sites and I very much doubt they'll be afraid of some new competitors that hither-to have been blindly loyal to one company that has generally treated them like dirt. Even-less-so if you consider my first point to be a valid one.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2011, 03:54 by Cogent Marketing »

« Reply #48 on: October 16, 2011, 04:11 »
0
Enough with the exclusive bashing already.
For the record, I never bashed exclusives, at the contrary. We need to feel a lot of empathy for colleagues that are hardest hit by the policy changes, especially the inclusion (and best match boost) of many of the imported collections. It's easy (sortof) to leave iStock with under 1K images and just a few thousand sales. It's a catch22 to be there and no presence on other sites to make up. As to Thinkstock, for the exclusives goes the famous Latin saying: hodie "mihi, cras tibi" (today happens to me what tomorrow will happen to you).

« Reply #49 on: October 16, 2011, 05:40 »
0

You're making a pretty big assumption that exclusives at iStockphoto are 'better' photographers than non-exclusives. Clearly they are not (based on total downloads each month and each quarter) - you can do the math yourself - visit the contributor lounge and review trends. This current quarter exclusives (again) only have 33% ranking in the most downloaded images. 66% of the largest downloaded images are from non-exclusive contributors.

No , I'm not assuming that exclusives are better I just mean that there will be a lot more competition.   There are a few really good exclusives that are in direct competition with the sort of images I produce and I wouldn't want to have to compete with them at all sites.  I also think that the really good  ones will try and do deals with the sites which may include trying for a better placement in the searches.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3006 Views
Last post September 21, 2009, 16:12
by Dan
234 Replies
38099 Views
Last post March 21, 2012, 22:34
by RacePhoto
0 Replies
3292 Views
Last post August 18, 2014, 08:51
by whatwolf
0 Replies
1523 Views
Last post April 26, 2015, 17:58
by Asthebelltolls
32 Replies
17215 Views
Last post May 25, 2015, 12:20
by dpimborough

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors