Nav: Home
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 02, 2010, 12:38

Login with username, password and session length

Microstock Group - A meeting place for microstock photographers

Microstockgroup Sponsors

PantherMedia.net

« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Print

Topic: Evaluating Exclusivity at Istock - Crunching the Numbers  

(Read 6579 times)
sharpshot



« Reply #50 on: February 08, 2010, 13:47 »

And after they make a profitable sale, the new owners will want to make more profit.  It is a shame we can't get together and buy them, I would put in $5 Smiley


Ignore | Logged


Snapixel.comPixmac
macrosaur



« Reply #51 on: February 08, 2010, 14:28 »

F&H just want to pump up the balance sheet ready for a profitable sale, why would they care about contributors?

Who can blame them ?

Their choice is about either screwing new contributors getting 80% of their sales or
screwing their exclusives getting 60% of their sales but also selling their high res files
at 0.25$ via ThinkStock.

However we turn the cards on the table it's a win-win scenario...  for Getty.



Ignore | Logged


CofkoCof



« Reply #52 on: April 13, 2010, 15:05 »

With the introduction of E+ the crown looks more and more tempting, even though SS has always been my number 1. I did a similar calculation (March + April earnings) and the increase for me would be 50% for the increased prices, 50% for the cannister (I think I'll be able to reach silver before the change) which totals in a 2.25x increase (just what gostwyks number is for silver cannisters). That gets me to about 70% of my current earnings. The factors that are not taken into account are: Vetta, E+, higher upload limits, position of my images in the BM, more time for producing images. Close call I think.


Ignore | Logged


MatHayward



« Reply #53 on: April 13, 2010, 15:17 »

Stop counting the numbers... Istock XL= 7.50$ XXL= 9.25$ XXXL= 11.20$   And that's only for a bronze canister

What you get elsewhere... 0.35$

The chances that Istock exclusivity give you what all other agencies give you are great. I know it does with me  Smiley

Depending on whether it's a normal sale or an Infinite Collection Sale, my commission is $21.60 or $50 respectively as an exclusive at Fotolia. 

-Mat


Ignore | Logged


sharply_done



« Reply #54 on: April 13, 2010, 15:24 »

.nevermind.


Ignore | Logged


cdwheatley



« Reply #55 on: April 13, 2010, 15:27 »

.nevermind.
Yep, save your breath.  Smiley


Ignore | Logged


macrosaur



« Reply #56 on: April 13, 2010, 19:10 »

fact is,

you're all less than 10 $ / photo.


Ignore | Logged


larsfrisk

New Member


« Reply #57 on: April 26, 2010, 15:27 »

Any exclusives out there who can report the effects of the raised prices on exlusive files? Do you sell as much as you did before the raise or has the number of sales gone down?


Ignore | Logged


Eyedesign


« Reply #58 on: April 26, 2010, 16:17 »

Numbers have gone up for me  Smiley


Ignore | Logged


vlad_the_imp


« Reply #59 on: April 26, 2010, 16:37 »

Sales down, income up.


Ignore | Logged


ShadySue



« Reply #60 on: April 26, 2010, 17:11 »

Any exclusives out there who can report the effects of the raised prices on exlusive files? Do you sell as much as you did before the raise or has the number of sales gone down?
Remember the decreasing sales can just be a result of the ever-increasing number of files in the collection, so most of us get a smaller slice of the pie. It's just about impossible to attribute reasons to falling downfalls. My downfalls were in freefall before the price increases. In fact, my Vetta files sell above my expectations, even with non-Vetta similars, and I've had 3 Exc+ sales with only about 1/4 of my allocation used, and among very few sales since Exc+ was rolled out.


Ignore | Logged


lagereek


« Reply #61 on: April 26, 2010, 23:37 »

Ive sent dozens and dozens of buyers to IS over the years ofcourse with a selfish interest but also IS has gained a lot and its a great place. However, the site is now getting messy, its too much of special this and special that with all differant pricing, etc.

Some 95% of buyers just want an ordinary pic, they dont want to get involved in all this structuring, one guy said to me: I dont even know how to buy there anymore.

If Gettys ambition is to slowly turn IS into Macro, etc then they should just go ahead and do it!  all this creeping around the bush is just confusing buyers and contributors for that matter. Besides,  they cant survive on a 18% exclusivity out of total contributors?  so why doesnt Getty just turn the whole site into a giant RF agency, its going towards that anyway.

best.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2010, 23:42 by lagereek »

Ignore | Logged


vlad_the_imp


« Reply #62 on: April 27, 2010, 03:04 »

Quote
It's just about impossible to attribute reasons to falling downfalls.

I agree, although I see a definite correlation between price increase and fall offs in downloads. Fortunately I have so far always seen a greater income increase compared with my sales decrease so I'm fine with that. I believe IS has tried to position itself at the higher end of the market and so far succeeds IMHO, you only need to look at the vector quality on IS and see it's far better than many other sites. Designers with bigger budgets who appreciate quality , and to whom a dollar or two increase is of no concern, will always pick IS first. The Mom and Pop buyers can shop at less professional sites.


Ignore | Logged


lagereek


« Reply #63 on: April 27, 2010, 04:44 »

Quote
It's just about impossible to attribute reasons to falling downfalls.

I agree, although I see a definite correlation between price increase and fall offs in downloads. Fortunately I have so far always seen a greater income increase compared with my sales decrease so I'm fine with that. I believe IS has tried to position itself at the higher end of the market and so far succeeds IMHO, you only need to look at the vector quality on IS and see it's far better than many other sites. Designers with bigger budgets who appreciate quality , and to whom a dollar or two increase is of no concern, will always pick IS first. The Mom and Pop buyers can shop at less professional sites.

True!  but youre talking about a meager 5% of buyers ( according to all stats)  how are 20 micros going to cash in on that? in this Micro world, its the little ordinary guy thats need looking after, hes the one putting food on your table.


Ignore | Logged


lisafx
« Reply #64 on: April 27, 2010, 08:59 »

The Mom and Pop buyers can shop at less professional sites.

This would be comforting if it were true, but the fact is that the top four sites are all very professional and have a lot to offer buyers, both in choice and service. 

And the other three besides Istock have the added benefit to buyers of being stable and not so confusing with changes to structure and pricing several times a year.

Istock doesn't even have necessarily the most extensive collection.  I just noticed yet another top seller, with extremely professional desirable images (Kurhan) who has over 12k images on DT and less than 1k on Istock.  This is clearly not down to just upload limits because I have managed to get 5k on Istock in the same period of time she's been there.  It is very telling that some of the top producers in the industry no longer find Istock worth bothering with.   


Ignore | Logged


rene


« Reply #65 on: April 27, 2010, 09:35 »

The Mom and Pop buyers can shop at less professional sites.
Istock doesn't even have necessarily the most extensive collection.  I just noticed yet another top seller, with extremely professional desirable images (Kurhan) who has over 12k images on DT and less than 1k on Istock.  This is clearly not down to just upload limits because I have managed to get 5k on Istock in the same period of time she's been there.  It is very telling that some of the top producers in the industry no longer find Istock worth bothering with.   
I think Kurhan is an exception. Yuri Arcurs, Belleimages, Iofoto, Phildate, Redbaron, Monkeybusiness and many other stopped uploading to Dreamstime.
I'm from few weeks exclusive at IS and my last weekends' numbers are better than entirely months at DT. Some do better on one site, some on other. Microstock has strange rules.


Ignore | Logged


lagereek


« Reply #66 on: April 27, 2010, 11:42 »

The Mom and Pop buyers can shop at less professional sites.
Istock doesn't even have necessarily the most extensive collection.  I just noticed yet another top seller, with extremely professional desirable images (Kurhan) who has over 12k images on DT and less than 1k on Istock.  This is clearly not down to just upload limits because I have managed to get 5k on Istock in the same period of time she's been there.  It is very telling that some of the top producers in the industry no longer find Istock worth bothering with.   
I think Kurhan is an exception. Yuri Arcurs, Belleimages, Iofoto, Phildate, Redbaron, Monkeybusiness and many other stopped uploading to Dreamstime.
I'm from few weeks exclusive at IS and my last weekends' numbers are better than entirely months at DT. Some do better on one site, some on other. Microstock has strange rules.

Lisa is absoloutly right!  equal quality is to be found in all the major, 3 or 4 agencies,  no doubt what so ever and ofcourse in the long run the cheapest will win,  human nature isnt it?
If we go on thinking were better at IS, we are seriously deluding ourselves. The Vetta stands out a bit but not much.
Remember, were talking nickle/dime prices here, a buyer whos gonna spend 100 bucks plus isnt visiting these places at all. I think we have to be very careful indeed the next couple of months, all this is too much alike what the Image-Bank went through in 93 and sure enough, look what happend!  only differance is, today its digital,  no big deal.


Ignore | Logged


VB inc


« Reply #67 on: April 27, 2010, 13:05 »

True!  but youre talking about a meager 5% of buyers ( according to all stats)  how are 20 micros going to cash in on that? in this Micro world, its the little ordinary guy thats need looking after, hes the one putting food on your table.

Excuse my ignorance but what stats are you referring to? I'm exclusive at istock so i cant say much for the other agencies and their buyers habits. I feel that a good chunk of the macro market has gone into the micro market (at least in istock) so they are used to seeing much higher prices and dont mind these higher prices especially with the E+ prices.  With this price hike, i believe Getty is trying to herd the mom and pop shoppers to thinkstock which is troublesome.


Ignore | Logged


sharpshot



« Reply #68 on: April 27, 2010, 13:37 »

Will the mom and pop shoppers buy a subscription?  I still don't understand what they are doing with thinkstock.  Making istock prices higher and then expecting us to accept the lowest subs commissions doesn't make any sense to me.  If they want thinkstock to work, they should offer non-exclusives at least the same commissions as shutterstock.  I also didn't understand why they closed SXP, it looks to me that a lot of the buyers there went to their rival sites.


Ignore | Logged


cclapper



« Reply #69 on: April 27, 2010, 14:18 »

Will the mom and pop shoppers buy a subscription?

I am going to say no. But it depends on your definition of a mom and pop shopper. I consider myself a mom and pop shopper. I freelance work or work full-time as a graphic designer. I have to buy stock photos for projects. I am not like an ad agency, where I buy tons of images a year and charge outrageous prices for my work. The businesses I work for are small to medium-sized.

I would not invest in a subscription because I just don't buy/use that kind of volume. I want to be able to get exactly the photo I need and I will shop at any of the sites to get it. If a couple of sites have the same image, I buy it from the lowest-cost on-demand site. For the majority of my projects, I can't use the "artsy" stuff. I buy more "real people, real life, everyday" type of photos, that depict the same. Now and again I get a juicy job and get to run free with it and might look for some "out of the norm" type of image, but not typically.

I think that I am fairly typical amongst the "mom and pop shopper" category.


Ignore | Logged


vlad_the_imp


« Reply #70 on: April 27, 2010, 14:46 »

Quote
a buyer whos gonna spend 100 bucks plus isnt visiting these places at all

You're wrong there. I've been contacted by some big buyers, one in particular, via iStock. Lots of people shop there.


Ignore | Logged


lagereek


« Reply #71 on: April 27, 2010, 15:52 »

True!  but youre talking about a meager 5% of buyers ( according to all stats)  how are 20 micros going to cash in on that? in this Micro world, its the little ordinary guy thats need looking after, hes the one putting food on your table.

Excuse my ignorance but what stats are you referring to? I'm exclusive at istock so i cant say much for the other agencies and their buyers habits. I feel that a good chunk of the macro market has gone into the micro market (at least in istock) so they are used to seeing much higher prices and dont mind these higher prices especially with the E+ prices.  With this price hike, i believe Getty is trying to herd the mom and pop shoppers to thinkstock which is troublesome.

Yes indeed, that is troublesome thoughts!  Getty isnt exactly doing anything from the godness of their heart. Ive been in their RM since 1993 ( came from Stones and Image-Bank), theyve done some great, great things but the way theyre enforcing things, structures on IS, lately. are very questionable and I cant help wondering where its all gonna end?


Ignore | Logged


Dook


« Reply #72 on: April 27, 2010, 16:05 »

At least I am not wondering. In 1993 the market was so closed i could not get in. Thanks to internet and Istock I am stock photographer now.


Ignore | Logged


lagereek


« Reply #73 on: April 27, 2010, 16:43 »

At least I am not wondering. In 1993 the market was so closed i could not get in. Thanks to internet and Istock I am stock photographer now.

well mate that was very-------enlighting, Im gonna sleep well at nights knowing you finally got in 15 years later and blooming hell youre a stock photographer.


Ignore | Logged


RacePhoto



« Reply #74 on: April 27, 2010, 16:45 »


... Besides,  they cant survive on a 18% exclusivity out of total contributors?  so why doesnt Getty just turn the whole site into a giant RF agency, its going towards that anyway.

best.

80% of the top 200 artists/photographers on IS are exclusive. That counts more than the somewhat irrelevant bottom half of the list making the figure 18% exclusive. No typo 80% of the top contributors (can't account for the Huh?? people) are Exclusive! Look at the percentage of total downloads that are exclusive, not exclusive contributors percentage and it's a different story.

Top 200 #200 has 65,000 downloads. If you add up all the downloads of the bottom half of IS, or the bottom 15,000 members, they don't have 65,000 total download between them!

Yes they can survive on 80% exclusive contributors, providing the majority of the sales on iStock.


Ignore | Logged


Royalty Free Images
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
Istock poll about Exclusivity « 1 2 3 »
iStockPhoto.com
Freezingpictures 51 6929 Last post October 02, 2007, 11:00
by KiwiRob
iStock video exclusivity?
General - Stock Video
nickp37 13 2675 Last post February 26, 2008, 07:07
by nickp37
Crunching some numbers....
Shutterstock.com
hatman12 11 1449 Last post May 21, 2008, 03:49
by CofkoCof
Preparing for iStock Exclusivity
General Stock Discussion
maco0708 20 1978 Last post June 01, 2008, 18:02
by DanP68
One more Istock exclusivity question
iStockPhoto.com
Dook 4 510 Last post February 06, 2010, 20:50
by jsnover

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc