pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

How has overall DL Income on IS been with the new changes?

Significantly  Down
79 (38.5%)
Slightly Down
35 (17.1%)
About the same
36 (17.6%)
Slightly Higher
26 (12.7%)
Significantly Higher
11 (5.4%)
Not IS contributor = I just want to see the results
18 (8.8%)

Total Members Voted: 192

Voting closed: November 30, 2014, 12:37

Author Topic: First Month of the New Improved IS  (Read 17331 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: October 19, 2014, 09:12 »
+4

If growth, by whatever measure, is the only thing that matters then I think that starting on the back foot may end up being to their advantage. Especially compared with other companies which may have less room to increase the number of subscribers at a time when markets are looking so very uncertain.

That could apply to a company with a clean slate wanting to get sold on to the next lot of investors, I'm not so sure about a company that is up to its neck in debt with ratings agencies giving it a pretty dodgy grade. As I understand it, Getty's ability to service its huge debt is rooted in the idea that it will have been growing its income steadily for the last couple of years, whereas the reverse seems to have been happening. It's hard to see how they can afford to have any of their main businesses going further and further onto the "back foot".

In my case, the first 16 days of this month saw just 25% of the downloads and 50% of the earnings of the same period last year, compared with Sept 1-16 last month (and ignoring an EL which would make it look even worse) sales are down by more than half and earnings by more than a third.

My returns may be particularly hard-hit because I've always regarded microstock as being for people who want small and cheap files and shot accordingly, for the sort of bloggers and small businesses whom istock apparently no longer wants as customers.

(edited to try to sort out my mess with the quote system -- goodness knows if I will get it right this time!)
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 14:32 by BaldricksTrousers »


« Reply #26 on: October 19, 2014, 10:31 »
0
^ To be clear I did not write any of the stuff which Baldrick has attributed to me.

Whoever she has quoted - it was not me. Shenanigous


I appreciate you correcting this.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 14:45 by bunhill »

« Reply #27 on: October 19, 2014, 11:08 »
-1
^ really ? What kind of nasty person votes someone down for pointing out that they never wrote something which they have been quoted as saying?  And does not have the common decency to at least explain why.

« Reply #28 on: October 19, 2014, 11:12 »
+4
^ really ? What kind of nasty person votes someone down for pointing out that they never wrote something which they have been quoted as saying?  And does not have the common decency to at least explain why.

LOL, someone also voted "Disagree" when I was reporting my experience. How can one disagree with someone's experience?

It made me laugh.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 11:27 by Freedom »

« Reply #29 on: October 19, 2014, 11:52 »
0
^ To be clear I did not write any of the stuff which Baldrick has attributed to me.

Whoever she has quoted - it was not me. Shenanigous

I didn't give you the minus 1 but you did say:

Quote
If growth, by whatever measure, is the only thing that matters then I think that starting on the back foot may end up being to their advantage. Especially compared with other companies which may have less room to increase the number of subscribers at a time when markets are looking so very uncertain.

Somehow it was attributed to Shelma.  The rest of the quote, attributed to you, is Baldricks reply to what you posted.  It gets confusing when there are too many quoted strings of talk.  I doubt it was on purpose. 

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #30 on: October 19, 2014, 12:01 »
+1
Well, with the majority of people reporting lower income, it looks like iStock's shot itself in the foot again.

There is obviously too little evidence here and over much too short a period to draw any sensible conclusion about the numbers. From here.

IMO iStock now has a long window, probably even years, in which to demonstrate growth vs today. Because growth (specifically  subscriber numbers growth) is measured against previous quarters and not against all time highs. Investors (and probably ultimately markets) are most interested in growth and the potential for growth.

If growth, by whatever measure, is the only thing that matters then I think that starting on the back foot may end up being to their advantage. Especially compared with other companies which may have less room to increase the number of subscribers at a time when markets are looking so very uncertain.

October is a good month for stock, historically. Yet sales and earnings are down this month at iStock. That means they're down even more, really, because they should have gone up. As they did at their main competitor. My sales there are up about 25% over this time last year. Growth is happening, just not at iStock.

« Reply #31 on: October 19, 2014, 12:59 »
-2
Somehow it was attributed to Shelma.  The rest of the quote, attributed to you, is Baldricks reply to what you posted.  It gets confusing when there are too many quoted strings of talk.  I doubt it was on purpose.

It's trivial enough to edit a mistake and get it right. I doubt any of us wants to be quoted saying things we did not write. It's a basic courtesy surely, if using the quote function, to ensure that you do not misrepresent peoples' opinions.

^ I did not write the stuff which Shelma Baldrick has attributed to me previously. Just to be clear again.

.... See .... Easy to edit :)
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 13:13 by bunhill »

« Reply #32 on: October 19, 2014, 13:53 »
+2
Somehow it was attributed to Shelma.  The rest of the quote, attributed to you, is Baldricks reply to what you posted.  It gets confusing when there are too many quoted strings of talk.  I doubt it was on purpose.

It's trivial enough to edit a mistake and get it right. I doubt any of us wants to be quoted saying things we did not write. It's a basic courtesy surely, if using the quote function, to ensure that you do not misrepresent peoples' opinions.

^ I did not write the stuff which Shelma Baldrick has attributed to me previously. Just to be clear again.

.... See .... Easy to edit :)

Keep your knickers on. If anyone had been reading the thread then they'd have known, from previous postings, who had said what and when. It was perfectly obvious that BT had made a minor error in his editing but the point he was making was clear. At no point did I even begin to attribute BT's excellent sentence structure and arguments to your good self __ obviously.

« Reply #33 on: October 19, 2014, 14:02 »
0
Keep your knickers on. If anyone had been reading the thread then they'd have known, from previous postings, who had said what and when. It was perfectly obvious that BT had made a minor error in his editing but the point he was making was clear. At no point did I even begin to attribute BT's excellent sentence structure and arguments to your good self __ obviously.

Fair enough I suppose.

« Reply #34 on: October 19, 2014, 14:30 »
+2
Sorry for any misattribution. I try to get the quote things right but at the same time it is the points being made, not who said things that is important. The discussion matters more than the personalities. (I've put it right now .... and therefore made mockery of all the outraged comments! Sorry, chaps)
« Last Edit: October 19, 2014, 14:38 by BaldricksTrousers »

JKB

« Reply #35 on: October 19, 2014, 14:33 »
+3
^ really ? What kind of nasty person votes someone down for pointing out that they never wrote something which they have been quoted as saying?  And does not have the common decency to at least explain why.

LOL, someone also voted "Disagree" when I was reporting my experience. How can one disagree with someone's experience?

It made me laugh.

Yes, I chuckled at that as well. I think someone has disagreed with most posts in this thread.

« Reply #36 on: October 20, 2014, 05:43 »
+2
Looking at my sales, things are still slowing down. That's not surprising if people are using up the New Credits they got issued and then going away. The shocking thing is that I just checked my records for April 2004 and it looks as if I will have fewer sales this month than I did back then - my first file was accepted on April 1, 2004 and I had about 100 files online by the end of that month, compared with almost 5,000 now. If you take my average portfolio size for April 04 as 50 files, and the sales volume for this month as likely to just about equal what it was back then, that means my sales rate has fallen 99% and earnings per file per month has fallen about 95% since 04.

This is not good for me.

« Reply #37 on: October 20, 2014, 06:10 »
+1
...downloads are induscussibly down of about 50%

in terms of earnings looks similar or not dramatically down as i'm paid more for one image...i will see at the end of the month

Uncle Pete

« Reply #38 on: October 20, 2014, 12:19 »
0
Yes that was the point and also because the other thread says "this week" which is even more short sighted. Give it time and lets see.

...downloads are induscussibly down of about 50%

in terms of earnings looks similar or not dramatically down as i'm paid more for one image...i will see at the end of the month

There is obviously too little evidence here and over much too short a period to draw any sensible conclusion about the numbers. From here.

I left out the other part and quotes. Yes I'd agree, it's just a discussion and ongoing look at the new system.

We have to look at all aspects. How does this change IS regular DL values? What kind of changes will be see in Subs and TS?

I thought it was interesting that one person said it was hurting TS downloads which are their major source of income from IS. Because for me, TS is a minor source of income and Getty or IS DLs are the majority.

Meaning, we aren't all gaining or losing from the same IS sources, and the new pricing might have different effects on various people.

I'll give it time, but my IS downloads (not subs, or TS) are at least four times higher value now and back to where they were the month that TS was opened. They took a substantial dive and have been down for years. So yes, I'm getting better returns and it's making me happier.

I also recognize that the levels and changes in collections, will have different effects on people, but as an Indy, it means little to me. The credit value increase has helped me.


« Reply #39 on: October 20, 2014, 12:37 »
+3
I thought it was interesting that one person said it was hurting TS downloads which are their major source of income from IS. Because for me, TS is a minor source of income and Getty or IS DLs are the majority.

Meaning, we aren't all gaining or losing from the same IS sources, and the new pricing might have different effects on various people.
It's possible - indeed, probable - that different types of portfolio will be affected in different ways as will exclusives compared with independents. However, the most recent TS info we have only covers the first week of the change, it seems unlikely that anything meaningful and observable would have happened to TS immediately. Partly used subscriptions wouldn't suddenly be abandoned because of some changes in a different Getty website, it wouldn't make sense.

« Reply #40 on: October 21, 2014, 09:20 »
+8
My sales at Istock are continuing to slow as each week passes, possibly as existing credits are used up. Last October I had over 600 regular sales (not counting PP, etc). This month it will be fewer than 200.

In October 2009 I had 1300 sales. How things have changed in 5 years.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #41 on: October 21, 2014, 10:17 »
+1
Yes that's what I was saying. Also the "Golden Age" of Microstock has passed, it's not coming back.

Mostly I was tired of reading "after a week..." when it's been a month.  :) Neither is long enough to see a convincing trend and even with that, IS has been going through changes over the past years, without these most recent adjustments.

They opened the gates and dropped upload restrictions. Apparently of the estimated current 17 million images, roughly 40% are Exclusive. Review standards have been lowered. There's much more going on than, one size fits all, revalued credits or dropping all the overlapping and confusing collections.

My regular IS downloads are up in value. That's enough to make me happy with the new plan. Now when the PP reports come in, it will be interesting to see it it was just switching my money from one pocket to another and no gain or change.



I thought it was interesting that one person said it was hurting TS downloads which are their major source of income from IS. Because for me, TS is a minor source of income and Getty or IS DLs are the majority.

Meaning, we aren't all gaining or losing from the same IS sources, and the new pricing might have different effects on various people.
It's possible - indeed, probable - that different types of portfolio will be affected in different ways as will exclusives compared with independents. However, the most recent TS info we have only covers the first week of the change, it seems unlikely that anything meaningful and observable would have happened to TS immediately. Partly used subscriptions wouldn't suddenly be abandoned because of some changes in a different Getty website, it wouldn't make sense.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #42 on: October 21, 2014, 11:24 »
+4
I don't know...if any of my advertising clients saw sales plunge like iS has, they'd be reversing course pretty quickly. (The most famous example being "new Coke." That product lasted about a nanosecond.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

« Reply #43 on: October 21, 2014, 11:43 »
+9
I don't know...if any of my advertising clients saw sales plunge like iS has, they'd be reversing course pretty quickly. (The most famous example being "new Coke." That product lasted about a nanosecond.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke


I agree but every time Istock do take action to address their current issues ... they just seem to create new problems and make things worse.

I wonder what would happen if they simply went back to the pricing and royalty architecture of 2009?

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #44 on: October 21, 2014, 11:56 »
+4
I think they should sit down and talk to a bunch of the clients who are defecting and ask them what they can do to make things right. Stop tossing pasta at the wall to see what sticks, to put it very nicely. I hate to see them collapse, but honestly all it means for me, as an indie, is that those sales move elsewhere. SS earnings are now up 32% for me over this time last year.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #45 on: October 21, 2014, 12:06 »
+3
I haven't uploaded to iS since I took all my model images down back when we were concerned about Getty ripping off images and putting them up for free download.  Has anything changed since then that would make it worthwhile to restart uploading?  I hate the thought of some of my best selling images being at risk of being offered for free when I'm collecting EL's and other high dollar payments elsewhere.  Regardless, I still wouldn't upload images with people in them, only non-people shots.

« Reply #46 on: October 21, 2014, 18:55 »
+11
I think they should sit down and talk to a bunch of the clients who are defecting and ask them what they can do to make things right. Stop tossing pasta at the wall to see what sticks, to put it very nicely. I hate to see them collapse, but honestly all it means for me, as an indie, is that those sales move elsewhere. SS earnings are now up 32% for me over this time last year.

They have conducted tons of surveys and research and even had Yuri fly in and advise them -- and they STILL MESS IT UP... ::)


« Reply #47 on: October 22, 2014, 04:03 »
+18
I think they should sit down and talk to a bunch of the clients who are defecting and ask them what they can do to make things right. Stop tossing pasta at the wall to see what sticks, to put it very nicely. I hate to see them collapse, but honestly all it means for me, as an indie, is that those sales move elsewhere. SS earnings are now up 32% for me over this time last year.

They have conducted tons of surveys and research and even had Yuri fly in and advise them -- and they STILL MESS IT UP... ::)

And it's so easy to get things right, all you have to do is sit down and think through how your customers and suppliers will react to a change. If the reaction is going to be positive you're on to a winner if it's going to be negative you're going down the drain. If you think it through like that, then when your new MBA-holding manager rushes in and says "Hey boss, I've just worked out that if we double the prices and halve the commissions we'll make  four times as much money" you don't swoon with delight over the brilliance of the conception and award the MBA an annual bonus, you kick her up the backside and tell her to get real.
I once met a high-flying business consultant who had worked in Margaret Thatcher's private office. She told me that the secret of consultancy was to get people to tell you what everybody in the business already knew and then tell it back to the boss, who knew it anyway but didn't like it and wasn't willing to listen to anybody else who told him.  It does seem that ever since Bruce left wishful-thinking management has been in place, and the only thing being listened to is "we can squeeze them here", "they won't notice if we do a deal behind their backs", "we can hide the true percentage we'll pay them like this", "the customers will swallow the price rise...", "they've got nothing to gain by quitting if we cut commissions" ....

« Reply #48 on: October 22, 2014, 13:00 »
+25
Istockphoto, Where greed meets incompetence

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #49 on: October 22, 2014, 17:38 »
+9
My sales at Istock are continuing to slow as each week passes, possibly as existing credits are used up. Last October I had over 600 regular sales (not counting PP, etc). This month it will be fewer than 200.

In October 2009 I had 1300 sales. How things have changed in 5 years.

Yep it's like watching a horror film, from top dog to near fatality.

They're out of sync with the current market place, no doubt they'll keep throwing s%^&t at the wall to see what sticks and grind their customers and contributors down in the process. They had a winning formula but for some unfathomable reason they chose to tear it up.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3678 Views
Last post May 08, 2009, 03:23
by Ploink
14 Replies
5809 Views
Last post October 12, 2011, 03:00
by icefront
2 Replies
2526 Views
Last post February 02, 2013, 10:36
by fotografer
3 Replies
2158 Views
Last post May 01, 2013, 03:09
by Phadrea
5 Replies
3636 Views
Last post December 27, 2013, 14:17
by Jo Ann Snover

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors