Author Topic: How Are Your iStock Sales? (Read 14804 times)

Pickerell · « **on:** February 25, 2015, 10:52 »

I understand that Getty Images has told bond investors that Q4 2014 revenue for its Midstock division (iStock, Thinkstock and Photos.com) was 15% lower than Q4 2013 revenue, despite its September efforts to simplify and lower iStock prices in order to attract more customers. Previously they had reported that Q3 2014 was down 10% compared to Q3 2013.

Are your iStock sales down more or less than the figures Getty is reporting? Or are you one of fortunate few whose revenue is steadily rising?

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #1 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:27 »

IS amount of return per DL Credit Sales IS, is up. PP and Subs no change. (or is that, only spare change?) Total monthly earnings are up for me since the change to the new system.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:32 »

Svcks for vector artists, since our prices were slashed. Credit sales continue to drop, subs not yet making up for the difference. On the rare occasion when I sell a photo I do make slightly more, though.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #3 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:38 »

I have only token files left at iStock, so I have nothing personal to share, but I hear chat from a number of current exclusives - and some graphs with trends over time although not specific numbers - and they'd see 15% lower as an improvement for them

Some are still getting some decent money from the files submitted via iStock and sold at Getty, apparently. Words like "sales have fallen off a cliff" keep coming up...

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #4 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:39 »

The monthly sales discussion should tell you all you need to know:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365235&page=1

jefftakespics2 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:40 »

I don't earn much from IS, but last couple months sales have been up by quite a bit. Not sure why.

mynameis · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:49 »

Q3 was down 29% for me while Q4 was down "only" 19%

StanRohrer · « **Reply #7 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:16 »

For me, dollars: Q3 down 18.5%. Q4 down 24%.

tickstock · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:18 »

Is this about collecting information from us so that you can try to sell it back to us?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #9 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:54 »

Well, we told them what was going to happen when they announced that they were "revaluing" the credits, didn't we? Some may have been able to get files cheaper than before, but those who usually bought one-credit files suddenly found they were being ripped off. You didn't need an MBA to see where that was going to lead. But maybe you needed an MBA to be completely out of touch with reality and to think it was all a good idea that would bring in heaps more "sustainability".

bunhill · « **Reply #10 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:58 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 25, 2015, 12:54

Well, we told them ... etc

It may not suit many of us but the strategy likely makes sense in the context of Getty likely moving towards an IPO.

Digital66 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 25, 2015, 13:08 »

Quote from: Pickerell on February 25, 2015, 10:52

I understand that Getty Images has told bond investors that Q4 2014 revenue for its Midstock division (iStock, Thinkstock and Photos.com) was 15% lower than Q4 2013 revenue, despite its September efforts to simplify and lower iStock prices in order to attract more customers. Previously they had reported that Q3 2014 was down 10% compared to Q3 2013.

Are your iStock sales down more or less than the figures Getty is reporting? Or are you one of fortunate few whose revenue is steadily rising?

I have similar numbers. Q4 2014 was 17% lower than Q4 2013. (I'm talking about several thousand dollars!) And things are getting even worst now.

I guess this is the result of iStock opening the gates to millions of crappy images, more copycats, the introduction of subscriptions, and the stupid changes in credit sales made last September, among many other stupid decisions they've made in the last years.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #12 on:** February 25, 2015, 13:08 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 25, 2015, 12:58

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 25, 2015, 12:54
Well, we told them ... etc

It may not suit many of us but the strategy likely makes sense in the context of Getty likely moving towards an IPO.

It's hard to see how adopting policies that make less money are going to help a flotation price - but I'm no business guru.

bunhill · « **Reply #13 on:** February 25, 2015, 13:26 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 25, 2015, 13:08

It's hard to see how adopting policies that make less money are going to help a flotation price

I would assume that a flotation price would potentially have little to do with what revenues were x years ago. Surely from the market perspective it will be about looking forward not back - eg in terms of their ability to grow over x quarters according to any of the potential measures of growth (subscribers, market share, footprint etc) . And at this point they can probably decide when to have that growth kick in.

At various iterations of the business they have talked about being prepared to cannibalize the existing model and I think we can assume that they have more changes to implement yet - including, I would guess, pricing.

We might not be enjoying the ride but from their point of view it is probably shaping out quite nicely assuming that nothing nasty happens on the markets.

hatman12 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 25, 2015, 19:07 »

This situation was predictable - it's just a question of simple maths. In September they reduced the prices of all the E+, S+ and Vetta files by up to 80%. Before, customers were happily paying high prices for those files. After September they could get those same files for just 20% of the price. This wasn't a reason for customers to buy more files - they just continued buying but at vastly reduced prices. Anyone could have forseen what that would mean for iStock's gross revenue.

Non-exclusive file prices were increased slightly, but that just wasn't enough to compensate for the massive price reductions in the exclusive collection.

At the same time customers were being encouraged to switch to subscriptions. Now, instead of paying up to $100 for a Vetta, that entire Vetta collection is now available at subscription prices.

This combination of events, coupled with lack of marketing, has resulted in iStock's annual gross revenue falling by up to $50 million. Moody's had already reported that iStock's gross revenue fell 7% over the twelve months to October 2014, amounting to circa $20 million. So the changes implemented over the past couple of years have basically reduced iStock's gross revenue by circa $70 million (educated guesswork). This at a time when Shutterstock's gross revenue has been increasing by 40% per annum.

Now the ratings agencies will be seriously considering cutting Getty's debt to junk status, putting tremendous pressure on Getty to somehow recover the lost revenue. They won't so that by increased marketing spend, because that will further damage profits in the short term. The only other alternative is to continue to reduce costs and payments to suppliers. This does not bode well for exclusives because the obvious place to cut is the 30% and 40% exclusive commissions. And the $2.50 subscription payments for the old E+, S+ and Vetta files. With deteriorating financials, it cannot be justified to pay out $2.50 to a supplier when a perfectly good non-exclusive image pays only $0.28 (ten times less).

Further best match changes to give greater exposure to non-exclusive files should be expected.

Despite all these things, iStock and Thinkstock still generate gross revenue in the $250 to $300 million range, which makes them a significant force in the industry, second to Shutterstock at $350 million. I think the outlook for non-exclusives is quite good, with the probability of rising sales (and income) over the next couple of years, not from expansion of the business but from best match shifts and increased subscription exposure. At the same time the outlook for exclusives seems to be dire.

I handed in my crown at the turn of the year. I had an excellent run at istock over several years as an exclusive, but I think the best opportunities there will be as a non-exclusive in the future.

KB · « **Reply #15 on:** February 25, 2015, 20:14 »

^^ Best summary to date of the iStock / Getty debacle of Sep '14.

hatman12 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 25, 2015, 23:46 »

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-25/getty-images-bonds-plunge-after-fourth-quarter-earnings-decline

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-25/carlyle-s-getty-images-said-to-run-tight-on-cash-as-profit-drops

Hobostocker · « **Reply #17 on:** February 26, 2015, 00:27 »

they can only blame themselves for destroying the market.

oversupply is just one of the problems, not THE problem.
the real problem is the microstock model itself, first they kill RM agencies selling similar images for a pittance, then because of cut-throat competition they slash prices even more and finally as a last desperate move they sell Subs.

instead they should make a "cartel" like in any other industry and fix prices 10x higher and scr-ew the buyers once and for all.

as long as Stock is cheaper than assignments the buyers have NO WAY OUT and will KEEP buying just as anybody else has no word on the price of cigarettes, booze, food, cars, homes, whatever.

either that or we'll end up like musicians playing gigs for a few beers and earning a pittance with downloads and streaming royalties.

50% · « **Reply #18 on:** February 26, 2015, 02:51 »

Quote from: tickstock on February 25, 2015, 12:18

Is this about collecting information from us so that you can try to sell it back to us?

Odd statement nobody forces you to buy anything you expect to get paid for your work, why should journalistic work not get paid? If you wanna write an article you do research and ask questions that is the most normal process.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 26, 2015, 03:21 »

Not really why shouldn't people want to know what the information provided is to be used for - if its to be resold it may have a value

bunhill · « **Reply #20 on:** February 26, 2015, 05:00 »

Quote from: hatman12 on February 25, 2015, 19:07

At the same time customers were being encouraged to switch to subscriptions.

Investment analysts are very keen on subscribers these days.

dpimborough · « **Reply #21 on:** February 26, 2015, 06:18 »

So that explains iStock increasing it's payout schedules to once a month and paying on the 25th of the following month in a bid to hang on to cash flow.

Contributors will continue to get screw-d

bunhill · « **Reply #22 on:** February 26, 2015, 06:32 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on February 26, 2015, 06:18

So that explains iStock increasing it's payout schedules to once a month and paying on the 25th of the following month in a bid to hang on to cash flow.

How does that help cash flow ? Using the water (flow) analogy, the same amount is still coming through the pipe. Also - in any accounting, the money set aside for payments is already a liability.

ShadySue · « **Reply #23 on:** February 26, 2015, 06:35 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on February 26, 2015, 06:18

So that explains iStock increasing it's payout schedules to once a month and paying on the 25th of the following month in a bid to hang on to cash flow.

Contributors will continue to get screw-d

Oh, and there was me thinking it was a combination of saving pennies on the accounting and an admission that fewer people will be reaching weekly payouts.

dpimborough · « **Reply #24 on:** February 26, 2015, 07:00 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 26, 2015, 06:32

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on February 26, 2015, 06:18
So that explains iStock increasing it's payout schedules to once a month and paying on the 25th of the following month in a bid to hang on to cash flow.

How does that help cash flow ? Using the water (flow) analogy, the same amount is still coming through the pipe. Also - in any accounting, the money set aside for payments is already a liability.

A liability yes but explain why a large number of companies pay on extended terms or late?

The problem with Getty is a shortage of ready cash (liquidity) so the answer is hang on to the cash for as long as possible.

I've worked with accountants and in account departments where it common practice to take as long as possible to pay suppliers (anything up to 6 months)

"There are many reasons why a company would look to extend its payment terms with a supply base. First reason is extended terms increases a company's working capital, this happens by increasing the number of turns a company has on its investment before having to pay."

and

"Another benefit to receiving extended terms from the supply base is the perception of your company’s stability and supplier trust. Wall Street analysts review average payment terms as an indicator of a company's strength with its supply base, for example a weak or unstable company wouldn’t be able to get favorable payment terms."

Quoted from http://www.capgemini-consulting.com/blog/procurement-transformation-blog/2013/09/calculating-the-payment-term-benefit-from-the-cost-of

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How Are Your iStock Sales? (Read 14804 times)

Pickerell

Uncle Pete

Shelma1

Jo Ann Snover

fotoVoyager

jefftakespics2

mynameis

StanRohrer

tickstock

BaldricksTrousers

bunhill

Digital66

BaldricksTrousers

bunhill

hatman12

KB

hatman12

Hobostocker

50%

Pauws99

bunhill

dpimborough

bunhill

ShadySue

dpimborough

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors