Author Topic: Is there any hope for iStockphoto? (Read 16903 times)

Noodles · « **on:** October 13, 2011, 17:17 »

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.

Perry · « **Reply #1 on:** October 13, 2011, 17:25 »

No hope left for iStockphoto. If they are looking for someone to blame, they should just look into a mirror.

nruboc · « **Reply #2 on:** October 13, 2011, 17:30 »

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

cidepix · « **Reply #3 on:** October 13, 2011, 19:24 »

Great news! I wish them all the worst

sharpshot · « **Reply #4 on:** October 14, 2011, 04:08 »

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.

Michael Lancaster · « **Reply #5 on:** October 14, 2011, 06:03 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 14, 2011, 04:08

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 do exactly the opposite and seems help it a lot.

michaeldb · « **Reply #6 on:** October 14, 2011, 13:59 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 14, 2011, 04:08

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.

jen · « **Reply #7 on:** October 14, 2011, 16:02 »

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.

lisafx · « **Reply #8 on:** October 14, 2011, 16:17 »

Quote from: jen on October 14, 2011, 16:02

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.

stockastic · « **Reply #9 on:** October 14, 2011, 16:27 »

Quote from: michaeldb on October 14, 2011, 13:59

... my outlook on life is much improved by not having to deal with iStock, the Soviet Union of Microstock.

That's what it came down to for me. Not enough return to justify the overall hassle, plus I got the feeling that things were only going to continue getting worse, forever. I quit submitting.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #10 on:** October 14, 2011, 16:30 »

Quote from: jen on October 14, 2011, 16:02

...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.

Freedom · « **Reply #11 on:** October 14, 2011, 16:40 »

I won't say that my overseas sales are tanked, actually I get more overnight sales than ever, while my US sales are not that great. However, it also depends on your contents, too. My port includes travel photos from overseas.

cobalt · « **Reply #12 on:** October 14, 2011, 16:43 »

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #13 on:** October 14, 2011, 17:09 »

Quote from: jen on October 14, 2011, 16:02

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.

Oh I see. So it might only be US customers that have changed their 'browsing habits'? That's OK then.

We'll know if Istock are growing because they'll have to increase the RC targets ... but that's probably never going to happen. So we have an ever-growing number of contributors ... with ever-growing portfolios ... fighting over an ever-diminishing number of total sales. Probably.

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** October 14, 2011, 18:12 »

Quote from: cobalt on October 14, 2011, 16:43

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.

jamesbenet · « **Reply #15 on:** October 14, 2011, 22:11 »

I wonder what the end plan for iStock is in the Getty Universe. I am guessing in Microstock they will probably concede and move to midstock. I cant be to happy by the RC cut and the decreasing sales.

With the mirrored content on partner sites based on lower cost it seems iStock could just survive as a cream of the crop image hosting site "Vetta, Agency" while 90% of the images leave and only prove available on lower cost pp sites.

What is the possibility they turn the tide for the better and start fixing the bad decisions made since last year regarding contributors?

I have no clue what the survey answers from thousands of us concerned might or might not do to change things. My guess is they might be swiped under the rug, I hope that's not the case but considering the time it sure seems they will be useless stored data in a few months.

Netflix got to feel the wrath of customers and iStock seems to be according to that US graph, not that far from the realization that they squandered the good will and loyalty of their customers and contributors for short term profit sheets. I hope I'm wrong and this is just all based on a bad economy manifesting itself. $:-\$

Noodles · « **Reply #16 on:** October 15, 2011, 00:22 »

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.

FD · « **Reply #17 on:** October 15, 2011, 01:26 »

Quote from: Noodles on October 15, 2011, 00:22

I like iStockphoto. () I do not like subscription selling by anyone! I think it will destroy Microstock (as we know it now).

Since when did Thinkstock (where all our images forcibly will be "mirrored") turn into an RM site?

Cogent Marketing · « **Reply #18 on:** October 15, 2011, 01:35 »

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.

cobalt · « **Reply #19 on:** October 15, 2011, 02:33 »

"I wonder what the end plan for iStock is in the Getty Universe. "

That is the question everyone is asking. 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.

Or do they want to go back to be the 800 Pound Gorilla on the market and like ebay be a place where you can find images at all price levels?

What I don´t understand is why they didn´t keep the high volume and their market position and just continue to cater for V/A clients at Getty or the many other midstock Getty agencies?

Since the management doesn´t publicly discuss their intended target group with the contributors (which is pretty strange for a community driven site) the stats on Alexa and Compete are the only independet resource the members have to see where the agency is heading.

I wish we could at least get an interview with Rebecca posted somewhere where she explains what the target group for istock is - mass market, boutique agency for midstock clients or do they want to return to their former dominating market position?

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

sharpshot · « **Reply #20 on:** October 15, 2011, 03:07 »

Quote from: cobalt on October 15, 2011, 02:33

...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.

john_woodcock · « **Reply #21 on:** October 15, 2011, 03:59 »

Quote

which is pretty strange for a community driven site

IS ceased to be community driven ( if they ever truly were) when Getty took over.

fujiko · « **Reply #22 on:** October 15, 2011, 04:03 »

iStock is going to be Fried in Hell.

Slovenian · « **Reply #23 on:** October 15, 2011, 04:10 »

Quote from: john_woodcock on October 15, 2011, 03:59

Quote
which is pretty strange for a community driven site

IS ceased to be community driven ( if they ever truly were) when Getty took over.

Indeed I was scratching my head while reading it. I can't believe anyone still believes in that. It's forums are ruled with an iron fist and there's nothing going on besides non-exclusives and exclusives attacking each other. They can't even join forces in the monthly stats thread...

cidepix · « **Reply #24 on:** October 15, 2011, 06:35 »

Quote from: cobalt on October 15, 2011, 02:33

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...

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #25 on:** October 15, 2011, 07:07 »

Quote from: cidepix on October 15, 2011, 06:35

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

Enough with the exclusive bashing already.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #26 on:** October 15, 2011, 07:54 »

"I wish we could at least get an interview with Rebecca posted somewhere where she explains what the target group for istock is - mass market, boutique agency for midstock clients or do they want to return to their former dominating market position?"

Actually, I tried several times via sitemail to contact her to do a q/a for my blog. I think I will actually make some calls when I am back in town to get it going. If you have any questions to ask, pvt msg me here or post. But don't expect a quick reply from me as I am on vaca.

cathyslife · « **Reply #27 on:** October 15, 2011, 08:13 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 07:07

Quote from: cidepix on October 15, 2011, 06:35

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

Enough with the exclusive bashing already.

Let's face it, exclusives have a bigger stake in their agency and will therefore stand by istock unconditionally, whereas the rest of us are way beyond that idea. To the rest of us, it does seem funny to stand behind someone who doesn't even stand behind you.

pancaketom · « **Reply #28 on:** October 15, 2011, 08:25 »

I think the endgame for Getty is to move away from istock and the higher percentages they have to pay exclusives. If they can switch higher priced sales to agency/vetta on Getty and lower priced sales to PP they pay lower royalties and no RC. Unfortunately in trying to do that they are killing IS and many buyers are moving to rival sites. Getty might actually make more from all this action, but I don't think it is good for artists at all (except perhaps for independents as buyers move elsewhere). I don't think that anyone will publicly admit to this strategy though, so we just have to see what happens.

IS was the one site that consistently pushed prices up but unfortunately at the same time the pushed royalties down.

helix7 · « **Reply #29 on:** October 15, 2011, 08:55 »

There's plenty of hope for stock. It's a great business model. Keep over 70% of every sale on average, on a product you don't have to manufacture and only requires server space to warehouse. Site traffic may be dipping, but so what. Prices are up, they're keeping a bigger chunk of the pie, and the company revenues probably aren't suffering. If things were really going badly at HQ, we'd be hearing about job cuts, benefits cuts for employees, etc. Last I heard, that on-staff masseuse was still around, so it sounds like things are humming along normally up there.

The only problem with the stock business model is that we're on the wrong side of it, the side that has to suffer to maintain the status quo for the employees, management, ownership, and investors.

But from the perspective of the company, things are going perfectly.

Mantis · « **Reply #30 on:** October 15, 2011, 18:17 »

Quote from: helix7 on October 15, 2011, 08:55

There's plenty of hope for stock. It's a great business model. Keep over 70% of every sale on average, on a product you don't have to manufacture and only requires server space to warehouse. Site traffic may be dipping, but so what. Prices are up, they're keeping a bigger chunk of the pie, and the company revenues probably aren't suffering. If things were really going badly at HQ, we'd be hearing about job cuts, benefits cuts for employees, etc. Last I heard, that on-staff masseuse was still around, so it sounds like things are humming along normally up there.

The only problem with the stock business model is that we're on the wrong side of it, the side that has to suffer to maintain the status quo for the employees, management, ownership, and investors.

But from the perspective of the company, things are going perfectly.

^^Exactly. Great post.

jamirae · « **Reply #31 on:** October 15, 2011, 18:48 »

one of their biggest issues is that many of their buyers are also contributors. these are the buyers that are bailing the quickest, if you ask me. I used to buy (and sell) exclusively with iStock. When the rates starting soaring, I still contributed, but quit buying there, opting to spend my money elsewhere or creating the photos I needed for designs myself. Now I'm not an exclusive contributor, though I still sell my work there, I don't buy there.

I don't think they realized that when they started screwing with their contributors they were also screwing with a huge portion of their buying base.

lisafx · « **Reply #32 on:** October 15, 2011, 19:10 »

Quote from: jamirae on October 15, 2011, 18:48

I don't think they realized that when they started screwing with their contributors they were also screwing with a huge portion of their buying base.

EXACTLY! But they should have realized. They had all that info at their fingertips.

And that business of dismissing buyer complaints if they happened to also be contributors was really a BAD idea.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #33 on:** October 15, 2011, 19:42 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 15, 2011, 08:13

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 07:07
Quote from: cidepix on October 15, 2011, 06:35

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

Enough with the exclusive bashing already.

Let's face it, exclusives have a bigger stake in their agency and will therefore stand by istock unconditionally, whereas the rest of us are way beyond that idea. To the rest of us, it does seem funny to stand behind someone who doesn't even stand behind you.

I'm not standing behind anybody. This is a business, Istock is my agent, and it's a business decision for me to be exclusive. If/when exclusivity no longer makes business sense for me then I will need to change my business.

None of us have an ideal situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.

ETC: Spelling

aeonf · « **Reply #34 on:** October 15, 2011, 19:57 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 19:42

Quote from: cclapper on October 15, 2011, 08:13
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 07:07
Quote from: cidepix on October 15, 2011, 06:35

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

Enough with the exclusive bashing already.

Let's face it, exclusives have a bigger stake in their agency and will therefore stand by istock unconditionally, whereas the rest of us are way beyond that idea. To the rest of us, it does seem funny to stand behind someone who doesn't even stand behind you.

I'm not standing behind anybody. This is a business, Istock is my agent, and it's a business decision for me to be exclusive. If/when exclusivity no longer makes business sense for me then I will need to change my business.

None of us have an idea situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.

+1
Bravo

cathyslife · « **Reply #35 on:** October 15, 2011, 19:58 »

Quote from: aeonf on October 15, 2011, 19:57

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 19:42
Quote from: cclapper on October 15, 2011, 08:13
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 07:07
Quote from: cidepix on October 15, 2011, 06:35

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

Enough with the exclusive bashing already.

Let's face it, exclusives have a bigger stake in their agency and will therefore stand by istock unconditionally, whereas the rest of us are way beyond that idea. To the rest of us, it does seem funny to stand behind someone who doesn't even stand behind you.

I'm not standing behind anybody. This is a business, Istock is my agent, and it's a business decision for me to be exclusive. If/when exclusivity no longer makes business sense for me then I will need to change my business.

None of us have an idea situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.
+1
Bravo

What a totally unexpected response.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #36 on:** October 15, 2011, 20:03 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 15, 2011, 19:58

Quote from: aeonf on October 15, 2011, 19:57
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 19:42
Quote from: cclapper on October 15, 2011, 08:13
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 07:07
Quote from: cidepix on October 15, 2011, 06:35

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

Enough with the exclusive bashing already.

Let's face it, exclusives have a bigger stake in their agency and will therefore stand by istock unconditionally, whereas the rest of us are way beyond that idea. To the rest of us, it does seem funny to stand behind someone who doesn't even stand behind you.

I'm not standing behind anybody. This is a business, Istock is my agent, and it's a business decision for me to be exclusive. If/when exclusivity no longer makes business sense for me then I will need to change my business.

None of us have an idea situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.
+1
Bravo

What a totally unexpected response.

Ditto

cathyslife · « **Reply #37 on:** October 15, 2011, 20:10 »

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #38 on:** October 15, 2011, 20:13 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 19:42

... You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.

I've only been back as an independent since June and one of the nice surprises is how much of my revenue at SS is coming from on demand sales, extended licenses and now the single image sales. On many/most weekdays, my on demand sales (in dollars) are larger than my subscription sales.

I agree that I wish the subscription model wasn't around (and that was one of several factors that initially played into my decision to go exclusive at iStock in 2008), but none of the major sites are pure subscription and DT and SS both have something to offer that makes the unpalatable subscription model go down a whole lot more smoothly.

cathyslife · « **Reply #39 on:** October 15, 2011, 20:20 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 19:42

snip
None of us have an ideal situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.

I don't think any of the agencies are wonderous everlasting glory (and I never have) but I agree with you that subscriptions aren't the best model. But like Joann said, my 5 ELs this month, coupled with ODs and subs, makes a big difference.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #40 on:** October 15, 2011, 20:36 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 15, 2011, 20:13

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 19:42
... You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.

I've only been back as an independent since June and one of the nice surprises is how much of my revenue at SS is coming from on demand sales, extended licenses and now the single image sales. On many/most weekdays, my on demand sales (in dollars) are larger than my subscription sales.

I agree that I wish the subscription model wasn't around (and that was one of several factors that initially played into my decision to go exclusive at iStock in 2008), but none of the major sites are pure subscription and DT and SS both have something to offer that makes the unpalatable subscription model go down a whole lot more smoothly.

Yes, and the SS single image sales thing looks promising for a lot of reasons. But it's also another risk from a business standpoint. If SS takes the majority market share and everybody loves them... doesn't this sound familiar? Like IS up until maybe 2009? They could do no wrong and then everything changed.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #41 on:** October 15, 2011, 20:38 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 15, 2011, 20:20

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 19:42
snip
None of us have an ideal situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.

I don't think any of the agencies are wonderous everlasting glory (and I never have) but I agree with you that subscriptions aren't the best model. But like Joann said, my 5 ELs this month, coupled with ODs and subs, makes a big difference.

Not disagreeing at all. If IS goes into a downward spiral for me, and SS continues growing single sales, business is business.

nruboc · « **Reply #42 on:** October 15, 2011, 20:52 »

Quote from: cclapper on October 15, 2011, 20:20

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 19:42
snip
None of us have an ideal situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.

I don't think any of the agencies are wonderous everlasting glory (and I never have) but I agree with you that subscriptions aren't the best model. But like Joann said, my 5 ELs this month, coupled with ODs and subs, makes a big difference.

ShutterStock is, indeed, the wonderous everlasting glory

cathyslife · « **Reply #43 on:** October 15, 2011, 21:23 »

Quote from: nruboc on October 15, 2011, 20:52

ShutterStock is, indeed, the wonderous everlasting glory

For a minute, anyway.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #44 on:** October 16, 2011, 02:14 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 20:36

If SS takes the majority market share and everybody loves them... doesn't this sound familiar? Like IS up until maybe 2009? They could do no wrong and then everything changed.

This is the reason why we (independents) must support all fair agencies, regardless of current sales level.

SS it the best site for me in every possible way at present, but nevertheless I am uploading my port to small sites as well - as long as their upload process is easy: it doesn't matter if I earn $1 per month, it's an insurance for the future and a way to prevent complete monopoly.

Anyway, all "low earners" are collectively representing between 5% and 7% every month: not something to throw away easily.

fotografer · « **Reply #45 on:** October 16, 2011, 02:57 »

I'm not sure if it is in our best interest to push all the buyers away from Istock. If earnings decreased too much for the exclusives then maybe they would decide to become independent and compete with us for sales at all the other agencies. At one particular agency I have amazing placement in the searches but I'm sure that would drop if some of the better Istock exclusives joined.

sharpshot · « **Reply #46 on:** October 16, 2011, 03:13 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 19:42

Quote from: cclapper on October 15, 2011, 08:13
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 07:07
Quote from: cidepix on October 15, 2011, 06:35

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

Enough with the exclusive bashing already.

Let's face it, exclusives have a bigger stake in their agency and will therefore stand by istock unconditionally, whereas the rest of us are way beyond that idea. To the rest of us, it does seem funny to stand behind someone who doesn't even stand behind you.

I'm not standing behind anybody. This is a business, Istock is my agent, and it's a business decision for me to be exclusive. If/when exclusivity no longer makes business sense for me then I will need to change my business.

None of us have an ideal situation. All of the top stock sites are taking more and more away. You may point out that SS is wonderous everlasting glory but it's a subscription site which few of us will agree is the best model. If SS is gaining and all other sites are declining for everybody go ahead and pat yourselves on the back. That probably means fewer buyers are paying for images over $1. Prices need to go up because if buying volume doesn't go up and all of the collections continue rapidly growing, at some point most of us will be looking at plateaued or decreasing earnings regardless of what sites you submit to and how many new images you add.

ETC: Spelling

SS is much more than a subscription site now. Just on demand downloads have overtaken all the other sites except istock for me. If I include EL's, they make more than istock. I haven't uploaded much this year but I still had a BME. They aren't perfect, there are still changes I would like to see but I have no complaints about the way they made changes that have increased my earnings. Other sites have made changes but I always seem worse off, istock being the biggest culprit.

Cogent Marketing · « **Reply #47 on:** October 16, 2011, 03:49 »

Quote from: fotografer on October 16, 2011, 02:57

I'm not sure if it is in our best interest to push all the buyers away from Istock. If earnings decreased too much for the exclusives then maybe they would decide to become independent and compete with us for sales at all the other agencies. At one particular agency I have amazing placement in the searches but I'm sure that would drop if some of the better Istock exclusives joined.

You're making a pretty big assumption that exclusives at iStockphoto are 'better' photographers than non-exclusives. Clearly they are not (based on total downloads each month and each quarter) - you can do the math yourself - visit the contributor lounge and review trends. This current quarter exclusives (again) only have 33% ranking in the most downloaded images. 66% of the largest downloaded images are from non-exclusive contributors.

If you agree with the principle that customers download what they consider to be the best or at least better photographs than others on the same site and that equates to 2:1 in favor of non-exclusives the answer is clear. The 'better' photographers are non-exclusive contributors. Clearly that statistic supports that position.

As far as 'pushing' buyers away from iStockphoto is concerned at the end of the day buyers make their own decisions based on their own real-life experiences with iStockphoto. Three of my biggest clients have all switched their accounts in the last two months to DT and SS where before they purchased virtually everything from iSP - and it had nothing to do with me - they felt they were being ripped off price-wise and 'forced to trawl through overpriced collections' etc. I mentioned the price filter to them and they simply were not interested.

If exclusives start to leave the sinking-iSP ship in droves as you predict (might happen), no problem. Independents have good ranking positions with really good images in all the other sites and I very much doubt they'll be afraid of some new competitors that hither-to have been blindly loyal to one company that has generally treated them like dirt. Even-less-so if you consider my first point to be a valid one.

FD · « **Reply #48 on:** October 16, 2011, 04:11 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on October 15, 2011, 07:07

Enough with the exclusive bashing already.

For the record, I never bashed exclusives, at the contrary. We need to feel a lot of empathy for colleagues that are hardest hit by the policy changes, especially the inclusion (and best match boost) of many of the imported collections. It's easy (sortof) to leave iStock with under 1K images and just a few thousand sales. It's a catch22 to be there and no presence on other sites to make up. As to Thinkstock, for the exclusives goes the famous Latin saying: hodie "mihi, cras tibi" (today happens to me what tomorrow will happen to you).

fotografer · « **Reply #49 on:** October 16, 2011, 05:40 »

Quote from: Cogent Marketing on October 16, 2011, 03:49

You're making a pretty big assumption that exclusives at iStockphoto are 'better' photographers than non-exclusives. Clearly they are not (based on total downloads each month and each quarter) - you can do the math yourself - visit the contributor lounge and review trends. This current quarter exclusives (again) only have 33% ranking in the most downloaded images. 66% of the largest downloaded images are from non-exclusive contributors.

No , I'm not assuming that exclusives are better I just mean that there will be a lot more competition. There are a few really good exclusives that are in direct competition with the sort of images I produce and I wouldn't want to have to compete with them at all sites. I also think that the really good ones will try and do deals with the sites which may include trying for a better placement in the searches.

sharpshot · « **Reply #50 on:** October 16, 2011, 06:02 »

I'm sure there's a good number of exclusives that are doing nicely with istock and will never want to go non-exclusive. We probably mainly hear from the ones that aren't doing so well but there were quite a lot here that used to defend istock and might of grown tired of the constant istock bashing. Remember sharply done and hatman? They used to post a lot here but went exclusive with istock and they both seem to be doing really well.

My portfolio never seemed to get the sales to justify going exclusive and I'm pleased that I didn't but I can also see that it was probably a sensible choice for some people. So I don't think there will be a huge impact from people going non-exclusive, as many of the best still wont consider it a good option. The number of buyers looks to be falling with istock but they're still a big site and I'm sure they will try and look after their top 10% of exclusives that sell the most images.

There's also the fact that standards have changed a lot over the years and many of the images that sell best with istock might not get accepted by the other big sites now. If I was exclusive, I would only go non-exclusive if I was really desperate.

loop · « **Reply #51 on:** October 16, 2011, 06:25 »

Quote from: Cogent Marketing on October 16, 2011, 03:49

Quote from: fotografer on October 16, 2011, 02:57
I'm not sure if it is in our best interest to push all the buyers away from Istock. If earnings decreased too much for the exclusives then maybe they would decide to become independent and compete with us for sales at all the other agencies. At one particular agency I have amazing placement in the searches but I'm sure that would drop if some of the better Istock exclusives joined.
You're making a pretty big assumption that exclusives at iStockphoto are 'better' photographers than non-exclusives. Clearly they are not (based on total downloads each month and each quarter) - you can do the math yourself - visit the contributor lounge and review trends. This current quarter exclusives (again) only have 33% ranking in the most downloaded images. 66% of the largest downloaded images are from non-exclusive contributors.

If you agree with the principle that customers download what they consider to be the best or at least better photographs than others on the same site and that equates to 2:1 in favor of non-exclusives the answer is clear. The 'better' photographers are non-exclusive contributors. Clearly that statistic supports that position.

As far as 'pushing' buyers away from iStockphoto is concerned at the end of the day buyers make their own decisions based on their own real-life experiences with iStockphoto. Three of my biggest clients have all switched their accounts in the last two months to DT and SS where before they purchased virtually everything from iSP - and it had nothing to do with me - they felt they were being ripped off price-wise and 'forced to trawl through overpriced collections' etc. I mentioned the price filter to them and they simply were not interested.

If exclusives start to leave the sinking-iSP ship in droves as you predict (might happen), no problem. Independents have good ranking positions with really good images in all the other sites and I very much doubt they'll be afraid of some new competitors that hither-to have been blindly loyal to one company that has generally treated them like dirt. Even-less-so if you consider my first point to be a valid one.

It's all a price question. Non ex files are way cheaper at istock, until 50% cheaper. Elsewhere, the price would be the same. That's not rocket sciencie. And, price again: should istock collapse, it would mean the triumph of low prices and subs. Customers are being used to the idea that an extra-big file shouldn't cost more than 30 c, no matter the effort and the production behind. It's not their fault, but ours.
That said, add that although true that revenue has went down, in my case this fall doen't seem related to the quoted fall in USA traffic posted. Month to month, my fall doesn't go further tan 15% from last's years's (BYE). Maybe less dl's, but with E+, Vetta, Agency and El's (some of them at 90 $ comission) and Vetta-Ag. getty sales, RPI is strong and RPD is higher. Obviously all these dl's come from another class of costumers.

All the other factors (angry contributors, bad mouthing etc) probably have a weigth too, but a nano-weigth compared with the price factor.

sharpshot · « **Reply #52 on:** October 16, 2011, 07:04 »

Quote from: loop on October 16, 2011, 06:25

....Customers are being used to the idea that an extra-big file shouldn't cost more than 30 c...

I don't understand that. We might only get $0.30 commission but the customer would have to pay for a subscription package to get that. So I don't see how they can be used to paying $0.30 for a file? It seems that most of them only use a small amount of their subscription limits, so the average amount a buyer pays for images using subscriptions is going to be much higher than $0.30. I wish subscription prices were higher but its not necessarily a cheap option for a buyer. Even if they download more than they would normally, they're unlikely to know what images they may need next month, so they can't really stockpile them.

loop · « **Reply #53 on:** October 16, 2011, 07:21 »

199 monthy subs/750dl's a month = 0,26 (that's in euros)
What they use they don't use we'll never know, but the price per download is easy to calculate.

sharpshot · « **Reply #54 on:** October 16, 2011, 07:43 »

That would be the price if they downloaded their maximum allocation. We do know that isn't the way subscriptions work. The sites like them because buyers download much less each month. So they aren't used to paying $0.30 per image, they're used to paying much more. In theory, they could pay as little as $0.26 but they could also download 1 image and pay 199.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #55 on:** October 16, 2011, 07:50 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 16, 2011, 07:04

they're unlikely to know what images they may need next month, so they can't really stockpile them.

Most subscription places seem to have a rule that you can only continue using images if you have an active subscription, so stockpiling is theoretically a waste of time. I doubt if the rule has ever been enforced, though.

loop · « **Reply #56 on:** October 16, 2011, 08:02 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 16, 2011, 07:43

That would be the price if they downloaded their maximum allocation. We do know that isn't the way subscriptions work. The sites like them because buyers download much less each month. So they aren't used to paying $0.30 per image, they're used to paying much more. In theory, they could pay as little as $0.26 but they could also download 1 image and pay 199.

Maybe, but that's the perceived price, what they think a license is worth.

cybernesco · « **Reply #57 on:** October 16, 2011, 11:53 »

Quote from: loop on October 16, 2011, 08:02

Quote from: sharpshot on October 16, 2011, 07:43
That would be the price if they downloaded their maximum allocation. We do know that isn't the way subscriptions work. The sites like them because buyers download much less each month. So they aren't used to paying $0.30 per image, they're used to paying much more. In theory, they could pay as little as $0.26 but they could also download 1 image and pay 199.

Maybe, but that's the perceived price, what they think a license is worth.

This is my perspective on this.

At SS, In US dollars, to download one on-demand image is $19.00. To download 25 on-demand images within one year, it is $229.00.

Subscription's is $249.00 for a maximum of 750 images and cannot download more then 25 images a day.

249/750 = .332

Because I have reach $10,000 in revenue over 2 years ago, (which I suspect maybe hundreds or thousands have reached that level as well) I get $0.38 per download.

Obviously if buyers would max out their downloads quota all the time, as you can see, SS would end up with a negative revenue of -$0.048 per download.

We all know that subscriptions must be profitable for SS for it to exist, and I am sure they are not getting just 5%. Even if they would get just 30%, the price per download for my images would cost the buyers $0.51 per download if they manage to download 488 images within a month. But I suspect that it is much more then 30% because then they would be more money to be made with other kind of packages. I suspect that SS is making well over 50% which would bring the price per download to $0.60 for the buyers if they manage to download 415 images.

I agree that it is still not much and that we deserve more but it is not as low as $0.26 per download for the buyers.

Obviously there is more profit for SS for the files being paid less then $0.38 but it is still costing the same for the buyers.

Sor far, over the years, SS has been improving their revenue stream through new packages and deals to benefit all involves, contributors, buyers and of course, themselves. I think they have the key to success for years to come.

lthn · « **Reply #58 on:** October 16, 2011, 12:06 »

Some serious pro (yuri maybe) mentioned here, that according to his estimates most buyers don't even dl 30% of their package. A very-very well setup sytem building on human habits abd psyche

michaeldb · « **Reply #59 on:** October 16, 2011, 13:54 »

Quote from: jsnover on October 15, 2011, 20:13

I've only been back as an independent since June and one of the nice surprises is how much of my revenue at SS is coming from on demand sales, extended licenses and now the single image sales. On many/most weekdays, my on demand sales (in dollars) are larger than my subscription sales.

This post caused me to look at my SS stats, and I was surprised to see that ELs, ODs, and the new 'Single Downloads' comprise 46% of my October sales. I had not noticed that only 54% of SS sales now come from subs.

loop · « **Reply #60 on:** October 16, 2011, 18:03 »

At SS, In US dollars, to download one on-demand image is $19.00.

Is that number right? In Europe 5 OD images cost 39 euros, That's about 8 euros one image, less than 12 american dollars. There's a difference.

pancaketom · « **Reply #61 on:** October 16, 2011, 18:50 »

Quote from: loop on October 16, 2011, 18:03

At SS, In US dollars, to download one on-demand image is $19.00.

Is that number right? In Europe 5 OD images cost 39 euros, That's about 8 euros one image, less than 12 american dollars. There's a difference.

I think you are mixing up on demand and single image downloads.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is there any hope for iStockphoto? (Read 16903 times)

Noodles

nruboc

lisafx

Noodles

Cogent Marketing

fujiko

Slovenian

helix7

lisafx

nruboc

microstockphoto.co.uk

Cogent Marketing

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors