Is there any hope for iStockphoto?

sharpshot

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

#link

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

loop

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

#link

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.


« Last Edit: October 16, 2011, 06:29 by loop »	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

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

#link

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

loop

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

#link

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.


« Last Edit: October 16, 2011, 07:23 by loop »	Ignore \| Logged

sharpshot

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

#link

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

BaldricksTrousers

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

#link

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.


	Ignore \| Logged

loop

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

#link

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

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


	Ignore \| Logged

cybernesco

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

#link

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

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

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.


« Last Edit: October 16, 2011, 12:33 by cybernesco »	Ignore \| Logged

lthn

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

#link

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


	Ignore \| Logged

michaeldb

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

#link

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.