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 17332 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: October 25, 2014, 05:02 »
+1
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" ....

Exactly!!!


Uncle Pete

« Reply #51 on: October 28, 2014, 11:32 »
+2
You know what, it's not September anymore and it's not the first week... (other thread)

Istockphoto, Where greed meets incompetence

We all know this ... AFTO.

 :)

« Reply #52 on: October 28, 2014, 12:59 »
+1
You know what, it's not September anymore and it's not the first week... (other thread)

Istockphoto, Where greed meets incompetence

We all know this ... AFTO.
I knew I had the wrong thread. I needed to gripe though! (Still do!)
 :)

« Reply #53 on: October 28, 2014, 22:22 »
0
You know what, it's not September anymore and it's not the first week... (other thread)

Istockphoto, Where greed meets incompetence

We all know this ... AFTO.
I knew I had the wrong thread. I needed to gripe though! (Still do!)
 :)

This is the right thread. Over a month since the change. 1 week is to short. 1 month isn't very long. Any change up or down could be normal variuation and nothing to do with the new.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #54 on: October 30, 2014, 15:12 »
+1
Odd, this just came up as unread, but I know it was?

Oh well, waiting for the PP and Subs to start coming in. And I'll be waiting for probably two weeks, won't I?

« Reply #55 on: October 30, 2014, 15:57 »
0
Odd, this just came up as unread, but I know it was?

Oh well, waiting for the PP and Subs to start coming in. And I'll be waiting for probably two weeks, won't I?

I noticed if someone edits their comment it will show up as unread again.  I think  that's how it works anyway. 

« Reply #56 on: October 31, 2014, 01:47 »
+7
This is the right thread. Over a month since the change. 1 week is to short. 1 month isn't very long. Any change up or down could be normal variuation and nothing to do with the new.
My earnings this month are so far below anything that I have had for about 10 years that there is not the slightest doubt it is a result of the changes.

« Reply #57 on: October 31, 2014, 09:12 »
+1
Well for me the main effect of the 'New Improved Istock' ... has been a new BME ... at Shutterstock.

Thanks Istock!

« Reply #58 on: October 31, 2014, 18:54 »
+4
Istockphoto, Where greed meets incompetence
You left out 'dishonesty'. That was always my main objection to IS. No one tries to be incompetent, and all business is about 'greed' in a way (that's why they don't end in .org). But IS was dishonest, they intentionally cheated me in more ways than one, and that I do not forgive.

« Reply #59 on: October 31, 2014, 22:47 »
+3
What is really changed in the photographic industry is that up to twenty years ago the spindle of this business was the photographer, now is the agent. I can't tolerate that an agent, that is working for me, change the rules on my shoulder without inform and discuss the new strategy BEFORE decide to apply it.

Unfortunately the steady growing number of photographers and the average lower request for quality and exclusive pictures by the customers, gave the handle to the agent.
Microstock is only a small part of my photographic income, and this is the reason why I'm not complaining.

What I want to say is that while the price of every goods are going up, pictures are condemned to go down. Is an evidence since 1995.

Closing this month, my microstock balance is approx the following:

IS zero%;
SS 30%;
FT 35%
DT 15%
123 15%
Pond+DP+Can 5%

Alamy is a part with a good result and the almost closed  ClipDealer gave me an high RPI with the last few images...

« Reply #60 on: November 01, 2014, 06:13 »
+2
This is the right thread. Over a month since the change. 1 week is to short. 1 month isn't very long. Any change up or down could be normal variuation and nothing to do with the new.
My earnings this month are so far below anything that I have had for about 10 years that there is not the slightest doubt it is a result of the changes.
Exactly. "normal variation" wouldn't include the drop I've seen, except perhaps for Christmas weeks. If I'm being repeatedly kicked in the nether regions I don't need to wait for an extended period to know it's hurting! :)

« Reply #61 on: November 02, 2014, 08:58 »
0
This is going downhill:

October regular sales stats vs:

September ($$): -57%
September (dls): -45%
October 2013 ($$): -25%
October 2013 (dls): -51%

« Reply #62 on: November 02, 2014, 09:32 »
+2
It's a bit hard to judge the actual sales since there has been a clear and strong trend from credit sales to subscription sales before the September changes already.

My download numbers in October are down almost 50% from the spring & summer months. Then again in September I had more subscription than credit downloads on iStock itself (not including the partner program). So the download volume could be the same or actually a bit higher than before the change.

Obviously the higher number of subscription downloads leads to lower average sales, so the royalties will suffer a bit.

But I end up with about 60 credit sales, 70-80 subscription sales and about 200 sales through the partner program. That is about 25% in credit sales and 75% subscriptions, so we are reaching about the same distribution that Shutterstock has. I guess there soon will be a point when this move from credit to subs is going to be over and then it will show how iStock will build up on their new offer which obviously is meant to mirror Shutterstock's offer.

Only then we will be able to judge if the new system is going to help iStock get back to a growth path or if they lose the race against Shutterstock after all.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #63 on: November 02, 2014, 09:46 »
+1
DLs compared to Sept 14: up 4%
Base $$ compared to Sept 14: up 9%
However, 2 ELs in Sept and 1 in Oct mean October's credit $$ total is down 8%
Up /well up from May - August credit sales, which were dire.

Worst October, by a long way; other than Oct 2007, my first year.
The new 'one size' system has raised my RPD, FWIW. But subs and the price slider seem to be eroding my bottom line. Sales pattern in my port seems to be preferring older files with few previous sales.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2014, 09:59 by ShadySue »

Buffalo Bill

« Reply #64 on: November 02, 2014, 09:50 »
0
I am small potatoes compared to the majority here but I started with 214 downloads per month (Jan) on iStock to well over 400 downloads now!

KB

« Reply #65 on: November 02, 2014, 10:52 »
+3
I am small potatoes compared to the majority here but I started with 214 downloads per month (Jan) on iStock to well over 400 downloads now!
If that's small potatoes, then I'm barely shoots pushing out of the ground.

Shelma1

  • stockcoalition.org
« Reply #66 on: November 02, 2014, 10:59 »
+6
I guess there soon will be a point when this move from credit to subs is going to be over and then it will show how iStock will build up on their new offer which obviously is meant to mirror Shutterstock's offer.

Only then we will be able to judge if the new system is going to help iStock get back to a growth path or if they lose the race against Shutterstock after all.

I think they've already lost. There was a time just a few months ago when SS brought me 3x as much income as iS, but since the introduction of subs it's been shiftingthis month it's 5 to 1. And I was making an effort to upload the same things to both sites so my portfolio would grow by the same number of images in both places. (The number in my SS port is misleading because they count jpgs and vectors as separate images, so many of my images are counted twice.)

It seems iS subs just convinced some previous credit buyers to switch to subs, which resulted in a big income drop. And then the new pricing changes at iS drove more buyers over to Shutter. If only they would both grow...that would be great.

« Reply #67 on: November 02, 2014, 13:53 »
+6
As an indie I would like to upload the same number of new images to istock as to the other sites.  I know subs rely on new work.  But the tiresome upload process on istock means they only get a few images every couple months when I have nothing better to do.  An I almost always can find something better to do.

« Reply #68 on: November 02, 2014, 18:04 »
+4
As an indie I would like to upload the same number of new images to istock as to the other sites.  I know subs rely on new work.  But the tiresome upload process on istock means they only get a few images every couple months when I have nothing better to do.  An I almost always can find something better to do.
I agree and am in the same position. The return that new uploads are producing there now is so low that it really doesn't justify the Deep Meta hassle. I can feed the rest of the sites with one click on an FTP server, followed by three or four clicks per image per site. Only iStock demands that everything be rekeyworded and -prioritised. It used to be worth the effort when the earnings matched those of SS but now .... three or four minutes per image and only one in 20 generates a sale, and that for maybe $1.20? That's a pay rate of a dollar an hour!

« Reply #69 on: November 03, 2014, 03:27 »
0
well i don't have a super big portfolio but i think that with 1100 images i can say something....in the end, my first month with new istock was not that bad.
Regular donwloads are down for about 35%, but $ earned are almost same as July which was one of my good months this year....so i still can't regret nothing.... Will wait for PP to make a statement

« Reply #70 on: November 14, 2014, 17:54 »
+3
Posted by Lobo at http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364161&page=1
"the majority of the feedback we have received has been positive."

HAH!
HAHA!
HAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!


« Reply #71 on: November 14, 2014, 19:23 »
0
Posted by Lobo at http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364161&page=1
"the majority of the feedback we have received has been positive."

HAH!
HAHA!
HAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!


It was utterly crazy that Istock didn't provide the option of a cheaper small/medium resolution image purchase for such buyers. They seem to be trying to copy SS yet have clearly excluded a good number of existing buyers by not doing so __ because SS do provide such an option.

KB

« Reply #72 on: November 14, 2014, 20:20 »
+1
Posted by Lobo at http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364161&page=1
"the majority of the feedback we have received has been positive."

HAH!
HAHA!
HAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!

It's too bad the feedback they get is apparently only from inside their own organization, rather than from real buyers and sellers. Because there is no doubt at all from my perspective that the most recent changes have been an unmitigated disaster.

But I'm curious; if that buyer has been a customer for 19 years, are they referring to Getty, then, and not IS? (Or maybe it was a typo, meant to be a '10'.)


 

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