MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

How does your Istock stats goes (Lately)

+
29 (15.8%)
-
147 (79.9%)
=
8 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 166

Author Topic: Istock sales (+) (-) (=) -Poll-  (Read 19864 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #125 on: December 01, 2008, 09:30 »
0

One thing I do know is that I really hope they do NOT implement their yearly price increase! I think that would be suicide in this financial environment.

Effectively UK buyers at all USD priced stock agencies have already had an approximately  25% increase due to the currency fluctuations.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 10:24 by thesentinel »


lagereek

« Reply #126 on: December 01, 2008, 12:48 »
0
I wasnt too surprised to see Exclusives way down as well, I know quite a few and theyre not happy.
I recon some of them will give up their exclusivity pretty soon.
I dont know? buyers seems to abandon ship, or what?  crying shame really.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 12:57 by lagereek »

lisafx

« Reply #127 on: December 01, 2008, 13:10 »
0

BTW: Istock  has dropped to Nr. 3 in the stats to the right for the first time since I am here. Another month like that and they will be Nr.4. Im not at all happy about that and it might not be the most relevant statistic but perhaps they might want to have a look at it.

Boy, those stats say it all!  Looks like istock has fallen to number 4 and they are the ONLY site listed that has seen a downturn in sales.  Yikes!

lisafx

« Reply #128 on: December 01, 2008, 13:13 »
0
Right now on the IS  Forum theres a thread about the November stats!  Well I knew it was bad but not that bad!
In a matter of no time at all, its gone from a "leader" to a very, very depressing site. All threads are just full of nothing really.

BTW, Christian, did you check out how many people reporting BME's or great sales also mentioned they haven't uploaded anything new in months? 

For the life of me I can't understand a best match that rewards people who are no longer uploading and penalizes those working hard to add fresh imagery to the collection. 

« Reply #129 on: December 01, 2008, 13:44 »
0
Now that the November results are in, I was indeed down from Oct over 50% (Oct was a BME despite the poor last week though). My November numbers were lower than my 3rd full month on IS with less than 10% of the total files up. (it did drop a lot after that 3rd month though with the first of many painful best match changes for me).

« Reply #130 on: December 01, 2008, 13:52 »
0
Right now on the IS  Forum theres a thread about the November stats!  Well I knew it was bad but not that bad!
In a matter of no time at all, its gone from a "leader" to a very, very depressing site. All threads are just full of nothing really.

BTW, Christian, did you check out how many people reporting BME's or great sales also mentioned they haven't uploaded anything new in months? 

For the life of me I can't understand a best match that rewards people who are no longer uploading and penalizes those working hard to add fresh imagery to the collection. 

This is what worries my the most. If new non-exclusive images are not aloud to move forward its just a slow death. It looks like the more new images sell the farther they drop, counterproductive.

The only bright spot is the ability to link though lightboxes on image and profile page.

« Reply #131 on: December 01, 2008, 14:23 »
0
istock has clearly attempted to address the issue of positive feedback loops that occur so much in microstock - an image that sells a couple of times thereby achieves good placement in search and therefor continues to sell - it takes off. However, this is pretty much a chance phenomenon (given that there are many good images on the site). So yes, istock is preventing this from happening by penalizing images that do take off. Like loudspeaker wail on a soundstage - put your hand over the mic to cut the feedback. The result SHOULD be that sales are spread more evenly throughout the collection, as other images improve in search placement, and in the long run quality is more likely to count than luck.

lisafx

« Reply #132 on: December 01, 2008, 14:39 »
0
istock has clearly attempted to address the issue of positive feedback loops that occur so much in microstock - an image that sells a couple of times thereby achieves good placement in search and therefor continues to sell - it takes off. However, this is pretty much a chance phenomenon (given that there are many good images on the site). So yes, istock is preventing this from happening by penalizing images that do take off. Like loudspeaker wail on a soundstage - put your hand over the mic to cut the feedback. The result SHOULD be that sales are spread more evenly throughout the collection, as other images improve in search placement, and in the long run quality is more likely to count than luck.

Sorry Averil, although I respect your opinion, to me this just doesn't make sense.  Penalizing popular images will not make quality count more than luck.  Just the opposite IMHO. 

I don't agree that sales should necessarily be spread more evenly through the collection. As a for profit business, (one with stiff competition) surely it is in istock's long term best interest to showcase higher quality and newer images in the front of the "store" regardless of who makes them.  Instead they are banishing desirable images to the back because they SELL. 

After all,  Istock is not a communist state with a mandate to engineer who gets sales, it's a capitalist business.  The cream should rise to the top instead of sinking.   
« Last Edit: December 01, 2008, 14:42 by lisafx »

« Reply #133 on: December 01, 2008, 14:41 »
0
I think the success of the buying gangs about this time last year proves the extent to which success breeds success regardless of quality.

lisafx

« Reply #134 on: December 01, 2008, 14:43 »
0
I think the success of the buying gangs about this time last year proves the extent to which success breeds success regardless of quality.

I definitely agree about the buying gangs, but I felt their response at the time (slot system), while not perfect, was a better solution than penalizing good selling images. 

« Reply #135 on: December 01, 2008, 14:51 »
0
For anyone on this forum not familiar with the buying gangs, here's what happened. Gang member uploads image. All the others immediately buy an XS file. Downloads/month figure for the image is very high. File is placed on first page of best match, and because many buyers are not discriminating, it sells very well, ensuring that it stays on first page and continues to sell well. There were a lot of very ordinary images on the first page of popular searches (Christmas images especially). Many photographers seem reluctant to admit the extent to which luck operates here, but ask yourselves how many great images do you have that never sell because they didn't get that early kick.

lisafx

« Reply #136 on: December 01, 2008, 14:57 »
0
Luck may appear to be a big part of it, particularly to exclusives who have no basis for comparison. 

But if you submit to 8 sites and most of the same images do well on all sites, and you see that the same contributors reach pretty much the same rankings on all sites, regardless of different rules, reviewing standards, search engines, etc., then it is pretty clear luck is not a big part of the equation. 

« Reply #137 on: December 01, 2008, 15:03 »
0
True the early kick helps, so does the late kick or any kick just so long as there is an oportunity for a kick at some point.

If you submit to multiple sites and the same new/old image sells on all the sites there is good chance it isn't by luck. Those are the images that you hate to see end up on your last page of bestmatch. I agree though that two identical images of a christmas ornament shot on white there might be some luck involved.

I see Lisa beat me to it gonna post it anyway. Need to learn to type faster

« Reply #138 on: December 01, 2008, 15:11 »
0
Recession?

Istock buyers are almost 80% North American people. One person I know is about to lost his job in the plastic industry. I would say that microstock is too cheap to be affected by. But Recession is a state of mind. The medias start yelling about how it will affect everybody lifes. Then people stop buying electronics and everything, in the case the medias are true.

These people are also designers and then they stop buying every images they could need one day. Then they start buying only what they need for their actual projects.

« Reply #139 on: December 01, 2008, 15:11 »
0
OK, point taken. I admit I don't have that overview that you people have, so I'll revise my thinking here.

« Reply #140 on: December 01, 2008, 15:12 »
0
I never had much of chance to do well at IS (only a few good months) and I'm sure there are many other new contributors, independent and exclusive, who feel as disappointed as me about what has happened with the best match changes. Devastating :'(
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 06:51 by epantha »

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #141 on: December 02, 2008, 06:06 »
0
I'm an iStock exclusive vector artist. I'm in the top 200 overall contributors, top 50 vectors, and I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with my sales, which have dropped month on month from the beginning of the year, November being my worst month. My faith in the ability of IS management to run the company in a sensible way has become severely dented, the current best match debacle being a good example. If my income continues dropping in the same way over the next 3 months I'll be very seriously considering giving up my exclusivity.

Microbius

« Reply #142 on: December 02, 2008, 06:59 »
0
there has been a steady downturn on IStock for months. I think anyone would have to be mad to go exclusive now.

« Reply #143 on: December 02, 2008, 07:25 »
0
My November 2008 stats compared to November 2007:

portfolio size ~130%
downloads ~25%
royalties ~35%

(and I don't mean -25% or -35% - it's actually only 1/4th and 1/3rd ...)

'nough said.

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #144 on: December 02, 2008, 07:50 »
0
Hi there Ave,

 The Exclusivity model was changed by Istock. It is a brand new model that restricts you doing other work ( entirely different work ) for any other RF company unless affiliated with Istock. That is the big difference that Istock is implementing and it is a very limiting contract compared to Macro exclusive contracts and how the business has been run for years. Their model is far more limiting to their excusives than stock ever used to be, or even other Micro exclusives for that matter.

AVAVA

VERY VERY TRUE. No other contract I have seen in macro looks like this and I have probably reviewed about 20 or so in detail over the last year. This kind of exclusivity is unheard off.

« Reply #145 on: December 02, 2008, 12:36 »
0
Down 50% compared October, all my other microstock site are going very well. ;D
And IS's upload is always a pain...

lisafx

« Reply #146 on: December 02, 2008, 18:52 »
0
I'm an iStock exclusive vector artist. I'm in the top 200 overall contributors, top 50 vectors, and I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with my sales, which have dropped month on month from the beginning of the year, November being my worst month. My faith in the ability of IS management to run the company in a sensible way has become severely dented, the current best match debacle being a good example. If my income continues dropping in the same way over the next 3 months I'll be very seriously considering giving up my exclusivity.

It has been really shocking to see how poorly exclusive vector artists have been treated with this latest best match.  I can't imagine why istock would risk losing some of the most popular exclusive artists by not addressing this issue. 

« Reply #147 on: December 02, 2008, 19:03 »
0
It has been really shocking to see how poorly exclusive vector artists have been treated with this latest best match.  I can't imagine why istock would risk losing some of the most popular exclusive artists by not addressing this issue. 

When did IS start accepting vectors?

If it is true that the new best match is heavily weighted towards the length of site membership, then it might be possible that this is affecting vector artists more than anything.

hali

« Reply #148 on: December 02, 2008, 19:43 »
0
Recession?

Istock buyers are almost 80% North American people. One person I know is about to lost his job in the plastic industry. I would say that microstock is too cheap to be affected by. But Recession is a state of mind. The medias start yelling about how it will affect everybody lifes. Then people stop buying electronics and everything, in the case the medias are true.

These people are also designers and then they stop buying every images they could need one day. Then they start buying only what they need for their actual projects.

little off topic, but relevant to your statement...
not with electronics, vonkara. ask any chain store electronic salesperson,my roommate is one.
plasma tv, gps, wii, camera,etc.. all still selling. regulars still walk in to buy 500 dollars worth of wii PS2 games, turn around and pick up the new panasonic lumix in pink. all without a blink.
recession? what recession?

yes, as you say, recession is a state of mind. still lots of people with lots of money to spend.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2008, 19:45 by hali »

« Reply #149 on: December 02, 2008, 20:32 »
0
It has been really shocking to see how poorly exclusive vector artists have been treated with this latest best match.  I can't imagine why istock would risk losing some of the most popular exclusive artists by not addressing this issue. 

When did IS start accepting vectors?

If it is true that the new best match is heavily weighted towards the length of site membership, then it might be possible that this is affecting vector artists more than anything.

I don't think so. Many vectorists on IS started by first submitting photos and/or 3D renders (this is the way I started). Suddenly one day in mid-October we vectorists, new and old-timers, saw our old slow-selling raster images move to the front of best match search results, and our good selling vectors move to the back.

It is without doubt that the new BMs greatly discriminate against vector illustrations. Early on,  an admin posted in the Illustrator Forum that IS did not intend to discriminate against any kind of image format and the situation would be quickly rectified, but it never was.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
51 Replies
11856 Views
Last post October 02, 2007, 11:00
by KiwiRob
10 Replies
2609 Views
Last post March 18, 2008, 04:47
by nicemonkey
31 Replies
4713 Views
Last post September 26, 2010, 13:34
by pet_chia
16 Replies
2731 Views
Last post May 17, 2011, 07:12
by CD123
5 Replies
1400 Views
Last post January 20, 2012, 14:52
by microstockphoto.co.uk

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors