These US data stats are looking dire for iStock  http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com/

Up until July/August I was averaging okay but now I'm down to 50% of average and its getting quite depressing. I'll hold out until Xmas but if things don't change I'm handing my crown in.

There's a lot of hope for IStockphoto, the contributors....not so much

I really hope all their problems are caused by the commission cuts and the way they have treated buyers.  The only way back would be for them to change their strategy.  It would show other sites that cutting commissions isn't the way to go.

I stopped uploading for almost a year, removed any link I could find to the site, stopped managing my public light boxes and drastically cut down the number of times I visit the site.  I'm sure individuals doing that makes no difference but I really hope that when a significant proportion of us change the way we use a site, it does make a difference.

I stopped uploading for almost a year, removed any link I could find to the site, stopped managing my public light boxes and drastically cut down the number of times I visit the site.  I'm sure individuals doing that makes no difference but I really hope that when a significant proportion of us change the way we use a site, it does make a difference.

I have done exactly the same thing, and it has made a great difference, to me. My sales are way up year over year, and my outlook on life is much improved by not having to deal with iStock, the Soviet Union of Microstock.

You know that these are only estimates, right?  Compete makes estimates based on 2,000,000 people's internet browsing habits in the US.  Since a big portion of iStock's income comes from overseas I wouldn't base such a huge business decision on one website's estimates.  If your sales have tanked, well, that's another thing.

Those stats are most credible and useful when taken as one piece of the picture, along with your own sales, stats threads, and other anecdotal info.  When your sales numbers, widespread opinion, and the analytics sites match up, then it does suggest (though admittedly not prove) a connection. 

...Since a big portion of iStock's income comes from overseas I wouldn't base such a huge business decision on one website's estimates.  ...

I doubt there's data to back that assumption up, but I too would have once said that a good portion of iStock's business came from outside the US (although every time I've seen iStock rank money from markets, I believe the US has been at the top of the list).

Based on the time of day I see sales show up (or not) in the last month or two, I am not seeing anything like the overnight activity (I'm west coast US, so when I start, Europe's business day is mostly done) I used to. I don't know if the reporting is delayed more than it used to be and so this is just anecdote too, but it does seem to be a noticeable change in my patterns.

SS reports non US vs US sales for the monthly totals (and doesn't break it down further). I was surprised to see that the US is about 40% of my monthly total - surprised but pleased that non-US sales were that substantial. Once upon a time FT had a huge proportion of its sales from Europe; I believe Germany was a particular stronghold. I don't have any recent insight as I don't sell there.

It is very simple - if the stats on Alexa or compete did not affect sales or turnover - istock would certainly say so.

Someone would get on the forum and post -"no problem, we have increased our sales and are now paying our artists 30% more royalties than last year" or something like that.

And obviously such an upswing in new customer traffic or spending would get reported in the monthly sales thread. Like it used to be just over a year ago.

Many exclusives are following these stats, it is very painful to see our agency drop. It is obviously bad for the companies reputation to not be perceived as the No1 in traffic.

istock must have a department that does nothing else but watch the position on these sites, the results of google image searches, general seo optimization etc..

So either, for some reason we don�t understand the drop is a result they wanted...some people are suggesting this is in line with trying to reach out to only the high paying clients...or there is a serious problem. And I hope it is being worked on.

istock is a huge company and they have been through all kinds of swings, it always was like a rollercoaster. So I am sure if they really want to be the undisputed No1 in traffic, they can be if they work on it.

istock must have a department that does nothing else but watch the position on these sites, the results of google image searches, general seo optimization etc..

It's a shame they only watch the stats without asking themselves 'Why'? and doing something about it. Stats are only useful as data for analysis.

I like iStockphoto. I want them to succeed. I'm not against mid-stock and I support sensible plans to increase the value of our work. I do not like subscription selling by anyone! I think it will destroy Microstock (as we know it now).

Everything is so blurry right now -  its very frustrating as these past two days have seen great sales! But those US stats still look scary to me.

I think that graph says everything for observers of business performance. If ever a company's unprofessional attitude toward it's suppliers and customers had come back and bitten them in the ***, there's your proof.

Completely self-inflicted and completely deserved. That's what happens when you put amateurs in charge of your business and allow unqualified admins to make day to day decisions well above their pay-grade. A recipe for disaster every time.

The other microstock sites must be laughing their heads-off at iSP's capitulation. They are getting market share increases everyday without having to do anything more what they have always done, treating their customers and suppliers professionally.

...Do they want to be a small boutique agency for ultracool V/A stuff at higher prices, sort of a "Gettylight"? Then the drop in traffic is to be expected. They would only want a tiny market share for that...

I think that must be what they want.  Istock was damaging Getty, so perhaps they thought that moving istock out of microstock would improve the prospects of Getty?  The big flaw in that strategy is that it appears that Shutterstock has now become much stronger.  I also can't understand the lack of tact with many buyers and contributors in their forum.  Those people aren't going to be big fans of Thinkstock, they are going to use their rival sites.  That's something that they could of addressed a long time ago but they have done nothing about it.  If they really wanted Thinkstock to do well, they could of matched the $0.30 subs we were getting with Stockxpert but they couldn't even do that.  There has to be some incentive to supply Thinkstock but there really wasn't one.  Now they have been forced in to making non-exclusive istock contributors supply Thinkstock but that's another huge gamble.  If istock earnings continue to decline for non-exclusives, it's going to be much easier to leave.  It looks like desperation.

I can't see how whoever is in charge has done a good job in the past few years.  I hoped something might change by now but it looks like they're going to carry on losing market share to Shutterstock.  It really does baffle me but I suppose many market leaders have fallen in the past and this shouldn't be a big surprise.

iStock is going to be Fried in Hell.

Surveys are a useful tool, but a community driven site lives from active interaction of all players.

sweet dreams It's stopped being community driven long time ago!

They underestimated the power of "word-of-mouth" and now they are getting killed by it because everybody is trying to convert IS customers into customers of other sites including me Why would I want any designer friend of mine to shop at IS while they pay me %17

IS is beyond joke and you exclusives are just funny...