pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock Watch 2011  (Read 25951 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2011, 06:13 »
0
@RacePhoto

I see, thanks.  Your count is based on the member userid numbers.

My numbers came from the count as reported at the top of the multimedia.de site (as in your opening post) for the last day of each of the years.  As I said, I've been keeping a record.


123XXX

« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2011, 06:43 »
0
So as a recap, which set of statistical data is correct?

« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2011, 11:09 »
0
I suppose it's better than silence.

But just barely.


All you had to do was ask! ;) http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=286942&messageid=5525802
Seriously, I'm just glad for everyone, that the sticky is there now.

I didn't see a link to a thread to ask questions.  Usually/sometimes they link back to a thread so people can ask questions then they (sort of) respond to them in the one sticky thread.  does anyone see that?


How about here: http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=288862&page=1


thanks Sean!

RacePhoto

« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2011, 16:12 »
0
So as a recap, which set of statistical data is correct?

Probably neither but Gannet77 still doesn't get it. Mine came from multimedia.de NOT user id numbers. So much for explaining it.  ???

Those are screen shots of the last user for any year, and since the database changes, it wouldn't matter what was captured last year, it gets updated as new data comes in. My numbers are from January 2011. I don't know where Gannet77 got those numbers. The only thing that I'd say is if they are right, then 6000 members from 2009 dropped IS in a year? I don't think so... If Gannet77 and I are using the same source, why are his numbers 6000 different from what's on the site right now?

I did a sort using Member Since - it's not rocket science. Then I subtracted the last number for a year, from the last number for the next year.

The difference between the number of photos claimed and the number on de is 10% which means the number of users could also be off by as much as 10%. However since new photos come in and can be counted by IS much faster than mmde, it would only be a lag, not necessarily missing data.

Anyway, nothing is perfect or statistically correct. The number of new users has dropped for the last two years. No judgment about IS or criticism, just counting and watching.

Maybe microstock has hit it's peak and is leveling off. Less new entries into the market. If there was a way to see how many new people joined SS, FT and DT, that would be a good indication of the trend for new artists?

« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2011, 16:28 »
0
Maybe microstock has hit it's peak and is leveling off. Less new entries into the market. If there was a way to see how many new people joined SS, FT and DT, that would be a good indication of the trend for new artists?

I'm sure it has. One good indicator is Shutterstock's "New images added this week" figure. It peaked at about 113K last year but has been dropping steadily for a few months now. We're down to 57K this week although I guess some people will be holding off new uploads until the silly season is over.

Maybe some folk who thought they'd "get rich by uploading the images from their hard drives" have since found it doesn't quite work like that.

lagereek

« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2011, 17:27 »
0
Like all other business, Micro will reach its peak and then remain just "steady". A sure sign is when you hit the wall, no matter what you upload or how many, earnings will not increase nor decrease.

RT


« Reply #31 on: January 05, 2011, 17:36 »
0
....... no matter what you upload or how many, earnings will not increase nor decrease.

Do you offer a guarantee policy for $100 regarding this statement  ;)

« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2011, 18:39 »
0
Like all other business, Micro will reach its peak and then remain just "steady". A sure sign is when you hit the wall, no matter what you upload or how many, earnings will not increase nor decrease.

Microstock is a long way from that peak. For a product that is affordable for everyone, they seem to have barely scratched the surface of potential buyers. Average people know the words clip art and stock art, but they don't associate it with a particular brand. These agencies really need to do a better job of bringing in new buyers and getting the word out to a broader demographic. Most of them don't seem to be earning their royalty share. I think a new player with a promotion machine could easily overtake all these agencies in a year or two if they put their mind to it.

lisafx

« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2011, 18:43 »
0
Like all other business, Micro will reach its peak and then remain just "steady". A sure sign is when you hit the wall, no matter what you upload or how many, earnings will not increase nor decrease.

I don't believe there is any such place.  Either you are growing your income or it is shrinking.  I don't think the standing still part lasts for very long. 

rubyroo

« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2011, 18:48 »
0
... They also need to spread the word about copyright issues and help to change the 'everything is free' mentality.  Furthermore, there are still a lot of buyers who think iStock is the only agency in the microstock business, and their competitors need to change that misconception.  

I wish they would also make it clearer that most of the photographers and artists are solo workers, earning or building towards a living at this.  I sometimes think (perhaps naively) that a lot of thieves think they're stealing from a big company that can absorb the loss easily, and may not realise that they have the potential to wreck the livelihoods of a lot of 'little guys'.

« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2011, 18:56 »
0
... They also need to spread the word about copyright issues and help to change the 'everything is free' mentality.  Furthermore, there are still a lot of buyers who think iStock is the only agency in the microstock business, and their competitors need to change that misconception.  

I wish they would also make it clearer that most of the photographers and artists are solo workers, earning or building towards a living at this.  I sometimes think (perhaps naively) that a lot of thieves think they're stealing from a big company that can absorb the loss easily, and may not realise that they have the potential to wreck the livelihoods of a lot of 'little guys'.

All good points.

Until my mom calls me up and tells me about some microstock site she heard of, I'm going to think they aren't doing enough marketing.  ;D I'm not sure if a company like Google or Amazon would be a good thing to join the microstcock game, but you have to think they would market . out of it.

« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2011, 18:59 »
0
I wish they would also make it clearer that most of the photographers and artists are solo workers, earning or building towards a living at this.  I sometimes think (perhaps naively) that a lot of thieves think they're stealing from a big company that can absorb the loss easily, and may not realise that they have the potential to wreck the livelihoods of a lot of 'little guys'.

That is really irrelevant.  Buyers don't care where the images come from.

BooKitty

« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2011, 20:17 »
0
I wish they would also make it clearer that most of the photographers and artists are solo workers, earning or building towards a living at this.  I sometimes think (perhaps naively) that a lot of thieves think they're stealing from a big company that can absorb the loss easily, and may not realise that they have the potential to wreck the livelihoods of a lot of 'little guys'.

That is really irrelevant.  Buyers don't care where the images come from.

Mr. Locke, FWIW I could not agree more with this statement. The only people who care about the "starving artist" are other "starving artists".

« Reply #38 on: January 06, 2011, 01:39 »
0
I wish they would also make it clearer that most of the photographers and artists are solo workers, earning or building towards a living at this.  I sometimes think (perhaps naively) that a lot of thieves think they're stealing from a big company that can absorb the loss easily, and may not realise that they have the potential to wreck the livelihoods of a lot of 'little guys'.

That is really irrelevant.  Buyers don't care where the images come from.

Neither do thieves.

rubyroo

« Reply #39 on: January 06, 2011, 05:32 »
0
Well... I was expecting someone would say that thieves have no scruples whatsoever.  Perhaps it's an old-fashioned practice for some thieves to hit only the large corps and retain some empathy for the 'little guy'. 

I don't agree that buyers don't care where images come from though (not sure if Sean was joking there... apparently equating buyers with thieves).  They may be few and far between, but when the iStock shenanigans started, I distinctly remember some buyers actively spreading the word on contributors' commission cuts and saying they would buy from agencies that gave us a better deal.   There are still highly principled in this world, IMO.  (Thankfully).

« Reply #40 on: January 06, 2011, 06:20 »
0
Scrupulous, old-fashioned, nice-guy, thieves .... I guess we live on different planets. I've heard thieves try to justify themselves by claiming it's really the insurance company that pays, or its a big faceless chain so their not hurting anyone, but if they really believe that they must be incredibly stupid. How much extra do you reckon you spend each month in the mark-up to cover the cost of shoplifting?

123XXX

« Reply #41 on: January 06, 2011, 06:34 »
0
I wouldn't place any bets on buyers/designers buying elsewhere because they feel bad for contributor royalty cuts. That may be the case for a few small desingers who also have small image ports for sale and feel gauged and so they will be leaving. But for most buyers it is business only and they need to be supplying the best quality imagery to their design clients in design layouts. If the quality of the images they are starting to source drops becuase they are now buying from a new, lesser quality image source, then they will start losing clients. So bottom line is buyers will still buy from whoever has the best images and honestly iStock still has the best collection of high quality exclusive microstock imagery available. Buyers and designers still have to put their own business interests in first position. If the quality of istock imagery really were to change, then buyers might really buy elsewhere, but designers are not going to jepordize their own business viability to try and help out some exploited artists. It's a pipe dream I think.

rubyroo

« Reply #42 on: January 06, 2011, 06:44 »
0
I've heard thieves try to justify themselves

Ah yes... that's probably the bit I'm missing.  Perhaps it always has been purely a justification and a lie, and
it's just my nature to retain some faith in humanity and look for the shades of grey.  IME, that's been a reliable
approach to life - but perhaps I'm completely wrong when it comes to thieves - whose mentality I can't really hope
to understand.

I hear you on the shoplifting and mark-ups... I started out in retail and caught a few credit card thieves
in the act in my time.  Back in those days we had photocopied handwritten lists of card numbers to
watch out for at the cash register - which seems such a world away from where we are now.

@123xxx  I know of one designer personally (a RL ex-colleague) who has switched to DT in protest over commission cuts, and has had no trouble meeting his quality standards there.  IME, such things never happen in isolation.  I'm sure that any quality disparities will level off over time, as standards are driven up elsewhere and once-exclusive ports start to be shared with other agencies.  We'll just have to wait and see how things unfold this year.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 07:33 by rubyroo »

PaulieWalnuts

  • We Have Exciting News For You
« Reply #43 on: January 06, 2011, 07:46 »
0
I don't agree that buyers don't care where images come from though (not sure if Sean was joking there... apparently equating buyers with thieves).  They may be few and far between, but when the iStock shenanigans started, I distinctly remember some buyers actively spreading the word on contributors' commission cuts and saying they would buy from agencies that gave us a better deal.   There are still highly principled in this world, IMO.  (Thankfully).

A small percentage of buyers may be aware and care, but a lot of those people probably have dual roles are buyers and contributors. I'd say the majority of buyers care about one thing, their job. And whatever gives them the right image for the right price as quickly as possible to help them do, or keep, their job is priority number one.

Even if they do care, most will only make a move if it directly affects them. Like a price increase or they can't find the right image.

Would you leave an agency if buyers were being treated poorly? I doubt it. Not unless the buyers leaving totally killed your sales.

rubyroo

« Reply #44 on: January 06, 2011, 07:56 »
0
@ PaulieWalnuts... I'd like to think that I would.  In general life I'm one of those people who buys Fair Trade and 'ethical' products (as far as I can) but... as  you point out... the position of a designer is one that is forced up against deadlines, standards and expectations of others.  It's not necessarily a free choice, and time-constraints may make it impossible to stand back long enough to make a decision based on one's own sense of ethics.

Ideally (if I had time) I'd try to strike a balance between all these things.  As I said above, I do personally know one person who threw over iStock on principle (and he is just a buyer, not a contributor) - but obviously his clientelle and pace of work allows for that.

RT


« Reply #45 on: January 07, 2011, 13:31 »
0
If the quality of the images they are starting to source drops becuase they are now buying from a new, lesser quality image source, then they will start losing clients.

The quality of images on iStock are no higher that many other sites. Most of the worlds highest selling professional stock photographers sell on many sites, plus iStock is just as full of images by low selling contributors as any of the others.

If what some people believe (i.e. exclusives get a bump up the search ranks) then from a buyers point of view shopping at an alternative site means they don't have to wade through all the stuff from exclusives that have had very few sales, on other sites quality shines through with no 'bump' up.

« Reply #46 on: January 07, 2011, 13:45 »
0
The quality of images on iStock are no higher that many other sites. Most of the worlds highest selling professional stock photographers sell on many sites, plus iStock is just as full of images by low selling contributors as any of the others.

If what some people believe (i.e. exclusives get a bump up the search ranks) then from a buyers point of view shopping at an alternative site means they don't have to wade through all the stuff from exclusives that have had very few sales, on other sites quality shines through with no 'bump' up.

... and, if they go to Shutterstock for example, all 14M images are the same price and available in just two sizes. For example they've got access to Yuri's entire 38K portfolio, including all the best-sellers at maximum size, for just $9. On Istock those cost nearly $40. The site never goes down and the Search works too.

« Reply #47 on: January 07, 2011, 14:26 »
0
Hi All,

 I think the best thing I saw from the post of IS is that they will not make it retroactive from the 1st of January. I said I thought they would about a week ago but Mr. Mexico says no they will start it when it is in place. so that's one good thing.
 Interesting reading on this post. I will say that maturation takes place in every business. There are a finite number of buyers so to ask IS to hustle up some more buyers is good but there will be a point where the new buyers start to level off and the sales numbers will reflect that at some point of the game, unless they keep raising prices. It happened with RF Macro before Microstock had made a dent, at least in my sales at Macro RF.
 Also after Getty joined in the game Macro never had more than one player that held the lions share of sales that is not as true in Micro, there are strong companies like SS and a couple others that are serious players in the industry so this also effects the growth at IS and the outcome of the entire industries growth. Sales are more diversified than stock sales used to be which is good for us photographers. The more diversified the sales are the better the business is for us shooters. Just my opinion.

Best,
Jonathan

123XXX

« Reply #48 on: January 07, 2011, 22:59 »
0
Gostwyck - In some ways I think it's hard to compare istock and ss. Two very different stock model sites in many ways. You can't quite rock up and just buy a one off picture on ss unles you have a monthly sub. It precludes many buyers from buying there. And many sub buyers download lots of content they don't need from the most recent uploads just to fill up their quotas. That is why portfolios usually start to drop in sales on ss after a few months. It often works in reverse on istock as it takes some time for pictures to come of age.

Jonathan - The non retroactive to Jan 1 on royalty rates issue is all well and good, unless of cource you are waiting to be bumped up a level :)
 
Unfortunately not everyone is in the same boat.

« Reply #49 on: January 07, 2011, 23:11 »
0
Gostwyck - In some ways I think it's hard to compare istock and ss. Two very different stock model sites in many ways. You can't quite rock up and just buy a one off picture on ss unles you have a monthly sub. ...


Actually, you can. You can buy a pack of 5 images for $49 - use within one year.

It's true that IS's subscriptions never took off, but all the other stock sites have tried to combine subscriptions and PPD. I don't think anyone has made the combo work particularly well, at least for contributors. In the time since I was active there, I've read SS contributors saying that their quantity of PPD sales has risen, but it's still a sauce not an entree as far as I can gather. The fact that Getty starting using IS to push Thinkstock subscriptions suggests that buyers are not quite so separate.

SS has just done the subscription thing so well that they remain king of the microstock subscription hill - the one to beat. I still think of them as Wal-Mart not Neiman Marcus, but Wal-Mart pulls in the customers pretty well too :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
5185 Views
Last post August 30, 2009, 22:17
by lephotography
8 Replies
4201 Views
Last post July 22, 2011, 11:41
by luissantos84
14 Replies
4723 Views
Last post February 06, 2013, 17:16
by jamirae
2 Replies
3139 Views
Last post July 17, 2014, 20:05
by goober
2 Replies
5197 Views
Last post March 17, 2016, 03:30
by Phadrea

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors