I know, I'm ahead, but this won't change much in a day...



Exclusive 15.13%
Black Diamond 45 (and more coming, nice work!) .12%
60% base Contributors
Under 100 DLs = 44%

Source http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/ of course. Nice work!

New Members in 2011 = 273 (this number tends to increase as they are added to the database, but for now that's it.)
New Members in 2010 = 2061

Is there any data on how these same stats looked a year or two ago? I'd think the change from year to year would be even more interesting to see.

Quote from: KB on December 30, 2011, 12:32

Is there any data on how these same stats looked a year or two ago? I'd think the change from year to year would be even more interesting to see.

Check the Wayback Machine.
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/

too bad it doesn�t work.. :/

^Better than nothing!

So in a little over 3 years, the total # of contributors increased 154%. Base level contributors made up the bulk of that (of course), increasing by 205%. Bronze increased by 115%, Silver by 83%, Gold by 86%, Diamond by 122%, and Black Diamond by 350%.

I wonder how sales increased by comparison; too bad we can't get that kind of info.

Thanks, Race.

Quote from: Karimala on December 30, 2011, 12:57

Quote from: KB on December 30, 2011, 12:32

Is there any data on how these same stats looked a year or two ago? I'd think the change from year to year would be even more interesting to see.

Check the Wayback Machine.
http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/

too bad it doesn�t work.. :/

That's strange.  It works fine for me.  You can go http://www.archive.org and enter http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/ in the search field.  You'll find "snapshots" of iStockcharts dating all the way back to October 18, 2008.

Well...for whatever reason nothing is coming up now.     Data was there a minute ago! 

delete please

total sales

2009: 20842437
2010: 21752185
2011: 18466282 (today and tomorrow left) (-15%)

Down 15% ... probably the first fall in iStock's history. While the number of contributors continues to rise and new collections are hiving off some of the cash.

That explains quite a lot, really.

Down 15% ... probably the first fall in iStock's history. While the number of contributors continues to rise and new collections are hiving off some of the cash.

That explains quite a lot, really.

The 15% is obviously averaged over the entire year. I'd guess that the slide has actually been gradually accelerating. They were probably 'only' down say 5-10% at the beginning of the year but the last couple of months may have been 20% or more.

I think the slide originally began immediately after the RC announcement which is why they had to revise the RC targets downwards only 3-4 months after they had implemented them. I'd imagine that sales had always been increasing until Sep 2010.

It certainly expains the drastic measure of the new best match in a desperate attempt to prop up the sales of their exclusives. I wonder how much time it will buy them?

^^^
+1

It's income that counts; for instance, my downloads for 2011 as compared to 2010 are down about 10%, but my income is UP 28%.  And that's straight royalties, not counting ELs, PP, GI sales or referrals (not that I get all that much from those anyway).

Given that iStock now take more percentage wise from my sales than they did before, I would imagine they're doing better yet - and if their income is up over 28% in the last year, then reports of their imminent demise are somewhat premature.

Well my revenue is probably down about 20% compared to 2010. If Istock sales really are down 15% over the year and that decline continues at the same rate then by the end of 2012 they could be 40% down compared to the peak of 2010. That would be very serious.

Just how long do you reckon Istockphoto could keep growing 'income' whilst shedding sales at such an alarming rate?

at the start of the year 2011 :

my data _

blackdiamond : 37
diamond : 774
gold : 1090
silver : 3180
bronze : 8064
base : 23079

total contributor : 36764 (less than the real effective number about 85000 now)
esclusive contributor : 5872
total files : 7479201

Quote from: traveler1116 on December 30, 2011, 17:19

Quote from: gostwyck on December 30, 2011, 17:11

Well my revenue is probably down about 20% compared to 2010. If Istock sales really are down 15% over the year and that decline continues at the same rate then by the end of 2012 they could be 40% down compared to the peak of 2010. That would be very serious.

Just how long do you reckon Istockphoto could keep growing 'income' whilst shedding sales at such an alarming rate?

If you mean by "sales" DLs then its down but if you mean by "sales" amount of money spent on credits I would guess sales are up.  I don't think anyone would argue all sales are equal (again if you mean DLs by "sales").

If you read from the top of the thread we are discussing the sales numbers as revealed by the .de charts __ not turnover/revenue.

I know but the price has increased a lot since 2008, a sale in 2008 doesn't equal a sale today at all.  In the last year my RPD has increased by at least 30% and I have almost no Vetta and no Agency.

esclusive contributor : 5872

less 99 now

Even if they have succeeded in pushing customers into paying more per download to compensate for falling sales, is it possible to imagine that next year they can repeat the trick?

And then do the same the next year and the one after?

This is where it is correct to use the word "unsustainable". You cannot endlessly increase prices to outpace a fall in sales, though maybe hiding the independent content is part of an attempt to do that.

I don't imagine they can repeat the trick year after year, no;  but then, I didn't expect them to do it this year.  After last years changes I'd really expected to be down in income this year, and that I would probably be dropping my crown!

But they aren't "pushing customers into paying more to compensate for falling sales";  the falling sales are a consequence of them raising prices, and I am sure they anticipated it.

What they do want to do is to find the price point which results in maximum income (as indeed do we all, surely?), and that price point is not going to coincide with maximum sales.  Whether or not they have managed it, and if so will manage to maintain it, remains to be seen...

This terrible, slow month (which should be a good one) is set to be the worst in over 2 years. So glad I am dropping my crown in a few days. I am down over $2238 this year compared to last.

What they do want to do is to find the price point which results in maximum income (as indeed do we all, surely?), and that price point is not going to coincide with maximum sales.  Whether or not they have managed it, and if so will manage to maintain it, remains to be seen...

Fair point, though it is a terribly dangerous game for them to play because the time-lag involved in customers using up existing credits or making a policy decision to change agencies means that the data they get about the impact of changes is likely to lag the change by several months. A fatal mistake could take six months to be recognised by which time a lot of irreversible decisions could have been made (especially around year-end/financial year-end, when budgets and spending decisions are most likely to be reviewed by the larger customers who seem to be iStock's chosen target now).

Getting paid for credit packs up front, long before the last of them will be used, was a wonderful benefit for a growing company that wasn't pushing against any kind of customer resistance. The same factor becomes a considerable handicap when trying to walk a tightrope between raising prices and losing sales.

As far as I know, no midstock agency has established itself yet. Istock seems to be trying to fill that role.

Total files 10051699

Hoorayyyyy!!

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 31, 2011, 07:22

Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2011, 06:44

Total files 10051699

Hoorayyyyy!!

Is that total for photos only, or does it include all media types?

And does it include all the photos Getty is dumping into IS?  Or is this number just for IS contributors' images? 

Quote from: Karimala on December 31, 2011, 12:37

Quote from: KB on December 31, 2011, 11:58

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 31, 2011, 07:22

Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2011, 06:44

Total files 10,051,699

Hoorayyyyy!!

Is that total for photos only, or does it include all media types?

And does it include all the photos Getty is dumping into IS?  Or is this number just for IS contributors' images?  

All files available on iStockphoto, I'd guess.

I ask because Shutterstock has 17,419,551 files online (which probably includes video).  That's a huge difference, especially when considering at IS I earn 1/3 of what I earn at SS!

Even if they have succeeded in pushing customers into paying more per download to compensate for falling sales, is it possible to imagine that next year they can repeat the trick?

And then do the same the next year and the one after?

This is where it is correct to use the word "unsustainable". You cannot endlessly increase prices to outpace a fall in sales, though maybe hiding the independent content is part of an attempt to do that.

I see it the opposite way. Increasing prices are the cause of falling sales. But I could care less about download numbers if my overall revenue is up...I wish we had some info on whether it's up or down site-wide.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 17:11

Even if they have succeeded in pushing customers into paying more per download to compensate for falling sales, is it possible to imagine that next year they can repeat the trick?

And then do the same the next year and the one after?

This is where it is correct to use the word "unsustainable". You cannot endlessly increase prices to outpace a fall in sales, though maybe hiding the independent content is part of an attempt to do that.

I see it the opposite way. Increasing prices are the cause of falling sales. But I could care less about download numbers if my overall revenue is up...I wish we had some info on whether it's up or down site-wide.

What you would like to see - given a variety of collections at a variety of price points - is that you keep the volume of business on the items that are at the lower prices and only have lower volumes on the high price collections (Vetta, Agency, exclusive+). You'd aim to grow the business overall by adding buyers for the higher priced content, not losing existing buyers in the process.

The problem, IMO, is that iStock managed to lower the volume of sales on the lower priced items because of the way they were pushing the higher priced ones. That's not growing the business. The temptation to "solve" the problem by pushing more of the higher priced stuff just accelerates the spin.

The fact that the site is frequently not working as it should just exacerbates the problems - frustrated buyers may find that the final straw in deciding to shop multiple places or leave when their credits are used. I saw another buyer post in the iStock forums this week, deleted not long after it appeared, where they said they were going to use up their credits and shop elsewhere thereafter. I don't spend much time in the iStock forums so it was just happenstance I saw it.

I think it's tempting for those whose income is currently OK at iStock to dismiss the reports of others (such as in the Dec sales thread and the 2011 sales thread) about drastically falling sales. Neither iStock or Getty is going to share any real information with contributors, so we inevitably have to read things into the data we can gather. If H&F is looking for growth in income, there's only so long iStock can deliver by cutting contributor payouts to a portion of their suppliers and dumping wholly owned content from Getty onto the site.

Quote from: kelby on December 30, 2011, 17:20

at the start of the year 2011 :

my data _

blackdiamond : 37
diamond : 774
gold : 1090
silver : 3180
bronze : 8064
base : 23079

total contributor : 36764 (less than the real effective number about 85000 now)
esclusive contributor : 5872
total files : 7479201

This is the "unsustainable" part that H&F was worried about. The top contributors (Diamonds of both colors) increased over 18% this year. It was that trend that I'm sure lead to their self-defeating commission structure change. Gold +14%, Silver +14%, Bronze +19%.

If H&F saw that trend, though, and worried about an unsustainable future, rather than an unsustainable present, they could/should have stuck to their "grandfathered canister" promise

off topic: Scott I just looked at your iStock port.  >110000 dl's on 390 files is one of the most impressive things I've seen in a while.  Congrats.

Thanks Matt. Designing icons has become a sort of obsession for me. I just checked out your photos... you have some amazing shots. I've always admired landscape photographers like you. I always think to myself "I could do that," then always come up short!

Quote from: mtilghma on January 13, 2012, 12:53

off topic: Scott I just looked at your iStock port.  >110000 dl's on 390 files is one of the most impressive things I've seen in a while.  Congrats.

Yes, even more impressive is that there are photos and not just illustrations. Nice work.

Thanks Paulie. I haven't uploaded photos for a good while, and last year's sales reflect it. I dropped way down to 25%. I am probably going to drop photo exclusivity as a result.

I also hope iStock (and somehow even believe that) is just having a little break before rising again, but we should also be realistic somehow. A lot of things have happened over there, and I can't remember many of them were good news.

Seriously, how is that going to happen? Istock have blown it. They screwed their customers and they screwed their contributors and now they are just beginning to pay the price. You have to witness the extraordinary rise of SS as Istock has slumped __ displayed graphically it's virtually a mirror image. That's where the customers have gone and I can't see them coming back anytime soon.

SS are still doing 'microstock' with all 17.5M images priced the same, great search results and a simple site that actually works. That's the formula for success and unless/until Istock adopt it they will fall further and further behind. As sales continue to fall at Istock then more and more exclusives will dump their crowns and give Istock's remaining customers ever fewer reasons to shop there. Istock is now on track to become a 'boutique store' selling low volumes of mid-priced images but how many of their contributors will accept that is questionable. The tipping point has been breached and it is now just a question of time.

Quote from: sodafish on January 13, 2012, 14:44

I don't disagree with you Scott, there indeed can be a very negative sentiment regarding iStock here, and it's not always completely objective. But if I'm correct you somehow doubled your icon portfolio during the last year, so you should take that into account for the fact you had a good year. The question is, was it good enough for having twice as much work for sale. I also hope iStock (and somehow even believe that) is just having a little break before rising again, but we should also be realistic somehow. A lot of things have happened over there, and I can't remember many of them were good news.

Hey Tom, you're right about uploading a bunch of new work. I wish a doubling of uploads would double my income...but of course older files earn less and less each year, so you can't do the math that way. I know you know that, but a lot of people have that mindset. But to answer your question "was it worth it?" I would give a qualified yes. I am happy with the year, if I could increase income each year with the amount I put in I would take it. But I do agree that there are a lot of moves on iStock's part that I don't like, and I know being on the wrong side of a best match shuffle can undo a lot. So yeah, my eyes are wide open, but I think (hope?) that things aren't as bad as they seems on this forum.

Somewhere in between the Woo-Yayers and Haters is sanity.

Anyone who thinks the mood on msg is "negative" towards istock, please just head over to any business forum and look at how companies get discussed there. msg is a sweet, sensitive bed of roses compared to all other places I visit.

In 2011 companies get discussed and observed with unprecedented public scrutiny in articles, blogs and comments. Any company that does business over the internet, especially a "community based business" like istock should be able to handle reality.

Personally, I don't care about iStock's feelings ... I'm just looking for objective info that I can use to help make decisions. As Paulie inferred, there seems to be a lot of woo-yahers and haters, and not too many in-between.

Try as I might to post objectively about IS, it's very difficult to do sometimes.  Here's the facts:

My earnings in 2009 at StockXpert and IS were 29% of my annual income.  In 2011, total annual earnings at both sites dropped to 22%.  Actual revenue dropped 63%.  Getty shut down StockXpert, removed our images for all partner sites except Thinkstock, and stripped the website bare.  StockXpert no longer exists.  The StockXpert collection now exists as the Hemera Collection without any attribution to the artists.  It's a shame, because StockXpert was once one of the top five earners.  Now the revenue is insignificant and I'm struggling to stay in business as a result of these losses. 

Getty's track record doesn't give me any reason to hold out hope IS will ever improve.  Maybe my experience with StockXpert has left me cynical, but I can't help but think they are actually trying to push out all the contributors so they can use the brand name iStockphoto for older Getty images they wholly own.  They get 100% of the royalties for those images and minimal labor is involved.  Moving Getty images onto iStock is cheap and efficient.       

Getty's track record doesn't give me any reason to hold out hope IS will ever improve.  Maybe my experience with StockXpert has left me cynical, but I can't help but think they are actually trying to push out all the contributors so they can use the brand name iStockphoto for older Getty images they wholly own.  They get 100% of the royalties for those images and minimal labor is involved.  Moving Getty images onto iStock is cheap and efficient.       

I agree with your cynicism of Getty. If they could pay out 15% commissions, they would. Thing is, as an exclusive obviously I want iStock to do well. But truthfully, I'm happy other sites are also doing well. It keeps everyone honest. I'd hate to see ANY one site gain a monopoly. That's when I'd set up shop for myself...

Quote from: Karimala on January 13, 2012, 18:58

Getty's track record doesn't give me any reason to hold out hope IS will ever improve.  Maybe my experience with StockXpert has left me cynical, but I can't help but think they are actually trying to push out all the contributors so they can use the brand name iStockphoto for older Getty images they wholly own.  They get 100% of the royalties for those images and minimal labor is involved.  Moving Getty images onto iStock is cheap and efficient.       

I agree with your cynicism of Getty. If they could pay out 15% commissions, they would. Thing is, as an exclusive obviously I want iStock to do well. But truthfully, I'm happy other sites are also doing well. It keeps everyone honest. I'd hate to see ANY one site gain a monopoly. That's when I'd set up shop for myself...

I was just thinking about somethin similar today. IS (Getty really) is paying indies 15-20% for something that's sold for micro prices. True, Getty is paying 20% as well, but for macro prices. We're getting up to a quarter less for something that's being sold for peanuts . Now how absurd is that?!?

I can't help but think they are actually trying to push out all the contributors so they can use the brand name iStockphoto for older Getty images they wholly own.  They get 100% of the royalties for those images and minimal labor is involved.  Moving Getty images onto iStock is cheap and efficient.   

Getty sees iStockphoto as a portal with good traffic through which to promote what they think they can sell for the best price:royalty ratio.

No doubt they would like to own Shutterstock too.

Awesome analysis ! Thanks to let us know what is the difference as to the results in the end ?