pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales have tanked big time  (Read 103244 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #850 on: December 17, 2011, 10:48 »
0
This entire subject is so beaten to sh+t !  that every post, every subject, all the money talks just becomes more and more absurd. Then we always get these little Istockers trying to justify and patch up.

In just 3 years time, we will see who is laughing.

Calm down, relax, breathe - then poor yourself a nice big whisky ;)


SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #851 on: December 17, 2011, 11:10 »
0
... but you are wrong, the succes is coming ONLY from the images I uploaded in 2011. More than 65 % (!!!) of my royalites made this year are coming from images uploaded in 2011.

What you fail to mention is that you have increased your portfolio size by 138% (!!!) in 2011.

More specifically you've done 138% more work in the last 10 months than you had previously achieved in the preceeding 3.3 years combined. Hardly surprising that you are experiencing growth.

Let's see how long you can keep it up for __ you'll need to upload nearly 2500 new images in 2012 and 6000 in 2013. Good luck with that.

you have an uncanny ability to make increasing your portfolio size seem like a bad thing...as Sean said, uploading alone doesn't do much...however, uploading good content and diversifying your portfolio seems to create conditions for consistent sales. adapt or die (within reason). some of iStock's "evolutions" can stick it up their noses as far as I'm concerned. but contributors like Guenter seem to have learned to fill holes, diversify, upload and grow. nice to see you here Guenter. I've always loved your bear shots...not to mention all your travel images.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 11:13 by SNP »

lagereek

« Reply #852 on: December 17, 2011, 11:50 »
0
This entire subject is so beaten to sh+t !  that every post, every subject, all the money talks just becomes more and more absurd. Then we always get these little Istockers trying to justify and patch up.

In just 3 years time, we will see who is laughing.

Calm down, relax, breathe - then poor yourself a nice big whisky ;)

Yup!  already done it!  ah, but you have to agree though?  look at all the threads about this and then followed by tons of graphs. I mean, seriously. :)

CarlssonInc

« Reply #853 on: December 17, 2011, 13:17 »
0
This entire subject is so beaten to sh+t !  that every post, every subject, all the money talks just becomes more and more absurd. Then we always get these little Istockers trying to justify and patch up.

In just 3 years time, we will see who is laughing.

Calm down, relax, breathe - then poor yourself a nice big whisky ;)

Yup!  already done it!  ah, but you have to agree though?  look at all the threads about this and then followed by tons of graphs. I mean, seriously. :)

A lot of people need to chill, relax, use any businessense they have and get on with work instead of trying to predict the future. Our commodities are pictures, the more and better we have the better situation we can POTENTIALLY put ourselves in.

Now time for another one and "get ready" for the Milan vs Siena game! Skl!

« Reply #854 on: December 17, 2011, 15:24 »
0
... but you are wrong, the succes is coming ONLY from the images I uploaded in 2011. More than 65 % (!!!) of my royalites made this year are coming from images uploaded in 2011.

What you fail to mention is that you have increased your portfolio size by 138% (!!!) in 2011.

More specifically you've done 138% more work in the last 10 months than you had previously achieved in the preceeding 3.3 years combined. Hardly surprising that you are experiencing growth.

Let's see how long you can keep it up for __ you'll need to upload nearly 2500 new images in 2012 and 6000 in 2013. Good luck with that.

And this is another problem about this idea:  it defeats the main advantage of stock photography:  Residual Income.   If you have to upload a certain amount a year just to keep sales, let alone increase them, its not residual anymore and how is that any better than doing for hire photography?

« Reply #855 on: December 17, 2011, 15:28 »
0
If you read the monthly sales threads carefully you will find out, that it are mainly diamond/gold contris who arent uploading a lot that are reporting decreasing royalites - but I am very sure that there is the same number of cintributors who are uploading regulary and a lot and are doing extremely well.

I gave an example of Lise Gagne, the #1 stock photographer on Istockphoto, and how her sales have seemingly decreased by 25 to 50% DESPITE her uploading possibly more than 1000 images a year.

If you are uploading new images but your existing images are going down in sales, its like going up a down escalator.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #856 on: December 17, 2011, 15:41 »
0

And this is another problem about this idea:  it defeats the main advantage of stock photography:  Residual Income.   If you have to upload a certain amount a year just to keep sales, let alone increase them, its not residual anymore and how is that any better than doing for hire photography?

Flexitime?

« Reply #857 on: December 17, 2011, 15:58 »
0

And this is another problem about this idea:  it defeats the main advantage of stock photography:  Residual Income.   If you have to upload a certain amount a year just to keep sales, let alone increase them, its not residual anymore and how is that any better than doing for hire photography?

Flexitime?

Not having to deal (directly) with clients?  Not having to market yourself?

« Reply #858 on: December 17, 2011, 16:11 »
0
... but you are wrong, the succes is coming ONLY from the images I uploaded in 2011. More than 65 % (!!!) of my royalites made this year are coming from images uploaded in 2011.

What you fail to mention is that you have increased your portfolio size by 138% (!!!) in 2011.

More specifically you've done 138% more work in the last 10 months than you had previously achieved in the preceeding 3.3 years combined. Hardly surprising that you are experiencing growth.

Let's see how long you can keep it up for __ you'll need to upload nearly 2500 new images in 2012 and 6000 in 2013. Good luck with that.

And this is another problem about this idea:  it defeats the main advantage of stock photography:  Residual Income.   If you have to upload a certain amount a year just to keep sales, let alone increase them, its not residual anymore and how is that any better than doing for hire photography?

Yup, that is exactly correct. The microstock model destroyed (for the most part) the idea of residual income from stock.
Now if you were the owner of images from a famous and deceased person that might be a bit different.

« Reply #859 on: January 05, 2012, 14:35 »
0
In the monthly stats thread over there it looks like another month of mainly poor results from contributors, just like November. I feel like we really do deserve an explanation because its not monopoly money we're talking about, a lot of contributors play by the rules and chase the dangling carrot and still come out bad and cant pay their bills.

But i know that's wishful thinking and the management would never admit to such a poor state of affairs. I think the sad matter of the fact is that they have dug themselves far too big of a hole now to come out and admit it, or at the very least show some kind of communication. Despite the lack of dialog we can at least deduce that by the amount of reports of poor sales and reduced targets for 2012 that it is pretty obvious that things are bad over there and they dont need to say anything.

btw. is SS officially No.1 now?

« Reply #860 on: January 05, 2012, 15:45 »
0
In the monthly stats thread over there it looks like another month of mainly poor results from contributors

People who are doing okay or perhaps about the same as normal are less likely to post (that they are doing okay or just about the same as normal) for fear that their portfolios will come under scrutiny from the people looking for trend ideas. Especially given that there are still niches which are under - exploited. The people who are doing okay do not talk about it. This is why the vast majority of stock photographers never post on any forum.

In this economy I think you are doing very well if your current income has not significantly dropped. Almost no matter how much your portfolio has expanded (assuming you are a not an image factory employing slave labor).

« Reply #861 on: January 05, 2012, 15:47 »
0
In the monthly stats thread over there it looks like another month of mainly poor results from contributors

People who are doing okay or perhaps about the same as normal are less likely to post (that they are doing okay or just about the same as normal) for fear that their portfolios will come under scrutiny from the people looking for trend ideas. Especially given that there are still niches which are under - exploited. The people who are doing okay do not talk about it. This is why the vast majority of stock photographers never post on any forum.

In this economy I think you are doing very well if your current income has not significantly dropped. Almost no matter how much your portfolio has expanded (assuming you are a not an image factory employing slave labor).

Bingo.

« Reply #862 on: January 05, 2012, 17:00 »
0
In the monthly stats thread over there it looks like another month of mainly poor results from contributors, just like November. I feel like we really do deserve an explanation because its not monopoly money we're talking about, a lot of contributors play by the rules and chase the dangling carrot and still come out bad and cant pay their bills.

But i know that's wishful thinking and the management would never admit to such a poor state of affairs. I think the sad matter of the fact is that they have dug themselves far too big of a hole now to come out and admit it, or at the very least show some kind of communication. Despite the lack of dialog we can at least deduce that by the amount of reports of poor sales and reduced targets for 2012 that it is pretty obvious that things are bad over there and they dont need to say anything.

btw. is SS officially No.1 now?

Well in my book they are. Five days in and my ODs are more than my subs, and I have an EL. Just bragging.  ;D

« Reply #863 on: January 05, 2012, 17:19 »
0
btw. is SS officially No.1 now?

Well in my book they are. Five days in and my ODs are more than my subs, and I have an EL. Just bragging.  ;D

Yep. So far this month my SS earnings are more than 3x those at IS and more than 50% of my total. My OD sales alone at SS are roughly equal to all sales at IS ... and I've had a couple of nice EL's on top of that too. SS do appear to be wiping the floor with the competition nowadays.

« Reply #864 on: January 05, 2012, 17:26 »
0
Istock has probably underestimated the community factor...

« Reply #865 on: January 05, 2012, 17:38 »
0
Istock has probably underestimated the community factor...

Istock severely over-estimated how far it could push the prices up and the commissions down. They have barely begun to pay the price for their miscalculation and are about to learn what the word 'unsustainable' really means.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2012, 17:41 by gostwyck »

« Reply #866 on: January 05, 2012, 20:19 »
0
Like everyone else my IS earnings are a fraction of what they used to be. What I can't understand is - why are they still #2 in the Microstock Poll Results? So far for Jan; I've earned more at Canstock than I have at IS! In fact, the only site that did worse than IS was BS. It's hard to believe they were once my #1 earner.  Someone has to be doing well at IS for them to rank at #2.

« Reply #867 on: January 06, 2012, 00:22 »
0
Like everyone else my IS earnings are a fraction of what they used to be. What I can't understand is - why are they still #2 in the Microstock Poll Results? So far for Jan; I've earned more at Canstock than I have at IS! In fact, the only site that did worse than IS was BS. It's hard to believe they were once my #1 earner.  Someone has to be doing well at IS for them to rank at #2.

I don't know how that poll works. Is it possible that Sean Locke could lift iS a notch or three all by himself?

CarlssonInc

« Reply #868 on: January 06, 2012, 00:39 »
0
Two reasons I can think of;

1. Only high earners are voting
2. It is only a vocal minority actually experiencing a negative trend, perhaps the rest are doing just fine?

« Reply #869 on: January 06, 2012, 00:58 »
0
I cannot speak for others, for me, although my sales didn't increase big time, I certainly cannot claim it tanked at all if I review the whole year.

Is it possible for some people, sales tanked at a particular time of the year and then returned to normal at another time.

nruboc

« Reply #870 on: January 06, 2012, 01:20 »
0
Those of us who are buyers know that IStock is done, it's a horrid experience buying over there. Watch, their business will continue to erode...loving every minute of it!!!!!!!!!!!!

CarlssonInc

« Reply #871 on: January 06, 2012, 01:39 »
0
Those of us who are buyers know that IStock is done, it's a horrid experience buying over there. Watch, their business will continue to erode...loving every minute of it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't understand what is to love about all that hard work that exclusives and independents alike put in at iStock just for it to be flushed down the toilet - would just be sad and I hope you are wrong.

nruboc

« Reply #872 on: January 06, 2012, 01:50 »
0
Those of us who are buyers know that IStock is done, it's a horrid experience buying over there. Watch, their business will continue to erode...loving every minute of it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't understand what is to love about all that hard work that exclusives and independents alike put in at iStock just for it to be flushed down the toilet - would just be sad and I hope you are wrong.

Not to worry, as I've mentioned, I believe IStock will continue to look after the exclusives they "want to keep", and those chosen ones will continue to be fine. It's the other ones like loopy and I can't remember his name, but I remember he is in the top 10% of his European Country, that I will always think about as IStock continues it downward spiral... yee hawwwww
« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 01:53 by nruboc »

lagereek

« Reply #873 on: January 06, 2012, 01:53 »
0
I agree with Martin here. I dont think its anything to love at all. I think its terrible, an agency that we once all loved, in fact and along comes Getty and its all destruction. I for one, would love to see them come back somehow, if not big time, at least back on track. :)

ayzek

« Reply #874 on: January 06, 2012, 05:09 »
0
Yesterday i met with an exclusive diomand. he wants to meet me cause he wants to ask how i am doing recently as an independent. He told me that he and his two close friends wants to throw their crown after terrible dec. statistics. I loved istock but never behave like cherry leader but they were really behaving cherry leader for istock. They both sold more than 400000 in istock. If they throw their crown this will be really big blood lost for istock.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
3750 Views
Last post October 25, 2011, 01:02
by MicrostockExp
17 Replies
2648 Views
Last post September 18, 2012, 15:44
by tavi
2 Replies
1056 Views
Last post March 16, 2016, 06:25
by mirkic
17 Replies
2442 Views
Last post May 04, 2017, 16:38
by heywoody
28 Replies
3862 Views
Last post July 25, 2017, 01:34
by zorandim

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors