pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales have tanked big time  (Read 180485 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dbvirago

« Reply #325 on: October 25, 2011, 07:08 »
0
When I'm earning 400% more at Canstock than at Istock, it's time to make a change. Just got a ten cent commission to bring me up to 1/3 of Sept sales and 1/4 of August sales.


« Reply #326 on: October 25, 2011, 07:27 »
0
If one is a higher ranking exclusive at IS (at 35% or 40% levels) expected income can go down by even 70%-80%
Maybe Jsnover can gives us better figures.

I don't think so. Staying at IS like non-exclusive, would get you about 50% of what you were earning there. Let's say 35-40%% if you have Vetta and Agency pictures. From here, any new income adds, so reaching 50%-60% in the beggining should be easy.

It's probably worse than that because exclusives have higher commission percentages AND higher file prices, so even without vetta they lose out twice over if they cancel. It isn't just going from 30% to - say - 17%. The exclusive base rate is the same as the independent "photos+" rate, so you might lose another 30% there. The decline could easily exceed 50% even for a silver or gold level contributor without Vetta or Getty earnings. They might also see the 17% commission rate drop to 16% after a year, because lower prices mean fewer "redeemed credits" even if your sales are unchanged. It's a serious issue for them.

True indeed.
+ add to the equation the fact that because of worse best match for non exclusives  fewer of you files will be downloaded = even less income.

I know of one diamond exclusive which lost 70% of his income.

helix7

« Reply #327 on: October 25, 2011, 09:00 »
0

True indeed.
+ add to the equation the fact that because of worse best match for non exclusives  fewer of you files will be downloaded = even less income.

I know of one diamond exclusive which lost 70% of his income.

Yep. I'm non-exclusive diamond and my earnings are down 90% from the good-old days of 2 or 3 years ago.

It's amazing things are so widespread and so severe. It's not one of those things where exclusives benefit while independents suffer. It's everyone, exclusive and non, top to bottom. When you've got guys like nico talking about their worst month in 5 years, other BDs talking about dropping numbers, it's crazy.

And all signs point to diminishing volume, meaning buyers are either buying less or buying elsewhere. Which is something I honestly thought would never happen. I alluded to the idea that buyers would leave in forum posts, but really in the back of my mind I figured that the strong loyalty buyers had towards istock would endure. Seems like that's not the case anymore.

If istock wants to salvage any of what they've built, the need to cut prices. Unfortunately that's another thing I'll talk about here but will quietly dismiss as an impossibility. No way upper management will sign off on a price cut.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 09:06 by helix7 »

Slovenian

« Reply #328 on: October 25, 2011, 09:20 »
0
If one is a higher ranking exclusive at IS (at 35% or 40% levels) expected income can go down by even 70%-80%
Maybe Jsnover can gives us better figures.

I don't think so. Staying at IS like non-exclusive, would get you about 50% of what you were earning there. Let's say 35-40%% if you have Vetta and Agency pictures. From here, any new income adds, so reaching 50%-60% in the beggining should be easy.

It's probably worse than that because exclusives have higher commission percentages AND higher file prices, so even without vetta they lose out twice over if they cancel. It isn't just going from 30% to - say - 17%. The exclusive base rate is the same as the independent "photos+" rate, so you might lose another 30% there. The decline could easily exceed 50% even for a silver or gold level contributor without Vetta or Getty earnings. They might also see the 17% commission rate drop to 16% after a year, because lower prices mean fewer "redeemed credits" even if your sales are unchanged. It's a serious issue for them.

On top of that search engine is not favouring them anymore and we all know what a difference that makes. We can experience it every time there's a best match shakeup.

« Reply #329 on: October 25, 2011, 09:44 »
0
If istock wants to salvage any of what they've built, the need to cut prices. Unfortunately that's another thing I'll talk about here but will quietly dismiss as an impossibility. No way upper management will sign off on a price cut.

I think another survey should do it.  ;D

traveler1116

« Reply #330 on: October 25, 2011, 09:47 »
0
If istock wants to salvage any of what they've built, the need to cut prices. Unfortunately that's another thing I'll talk about here but will quietly dismiss as an impossibility. No way upper management will sign off on a price cut.


I think another survey should do it.  ;D

Don't worry there will be more.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=335179&page=1

« Reply #331 on: October 25, 2011, 12:21 »
0
If one is a higher ranking exclusive at IS (at 35% or 40% levels) expected income can go down by even 70%-80%
Maybe Jsnover can gives us better figures.

I don't think so. Staying at IS like non-exclusive, would get you about 50% of what you were earning there. Let's say 35-40%% if you have Vetta and Agency pictures. From here, any new income adds, so reaching 50%-60% in the beggining should be easy.

It's probably worse than that because exclusives have higher commission percentages AND higher file prices, so even without vetta they lose out twice over if they cancel. It isn't just going from 30% to - say - 17%. The exclusive base rate is the same as the independent "photos+" rate, so you might lose another 30% there. The decline could easily exceed 50% even for a silver or gold level contributor without Vetta or Getty earnings. They might also see the 17% commission rate drop to 16% after a year, because lower prices mean fewer "redeemed credits" even if your sales are unchanged. It's a serious issue for them.

True indeed.
+ add to the equation the fact that because of worse best match for non exclusives  fewer of you files will be downloaded = even less income.

I know of one diamond exclusive which lost 70% of his income.

As far as the price difference between exclusive files and not, Photos+ has largely taken care of that. I used up most of my quota on any of the files that sold well so they were at the same credit value as when I was exclusive. I had removed my Vetta files in September 2010 (back to the main collection) when they jacked up the price and mandated that the files move to Getty, so I didn't have any dependence on Vetta income to worry about in the exclusive to independent shift.

As far as the size of the initial drop, it's hard to nail because even people who stayed exclusive are seeing drops comparing 2011 to 2010 (same month). My feeling was that it was only a matter of when, not if, I left exclusivity after the April 2011 contract changes Getty forced on their contributors. Better get the pain over with sooner rather than later and not waste time measuring the delta. I am fairly certain that even if I had stayed exclusive, my 2011 income would have been lower than 2010, so then we're only quibbling about how much lower - but yes, there is a temporary smack in the face while sales build elsewhere. In my case I can't contribute to FT, which most other people switching to independent would want to do.

I think it's a variation of the old question Ann Landers used to suggest people ask when considering leaving a spouse - are you better off with him or without him? When it was just iStock with Getty in the background, for me the answer was a clear win for exclusivity. After H&F tightened the screws to wring every last bit of profit from the business regardless of future consequences, I decided I'm better off independent and I'm fortunate I can afford to take the financial hit in the short term.

The point about refusals is something to consider - all the agencies refused images that were proven sellers. With one or two at SS I resubmitted with a note pointing out how many times the image had sold at iStock to suggest LCV wasn't really appropriate, but for the most part I've just been willing to let it go. I've no energy for arguing about it.

« Reply #332 on: October 25, 2011, 12:52 »
0
I am fairly certain that even if I had stayed exclusive, my 2011 income would have been lower than 2010,

I think you can be certainly certain.  My 2011 income is going to be less than 2009 ....  :P

« Reply #333 on: October 25, 2011, 13:19 »
0
I am fairly certain that even if I had stayed exclusive, my 2011 income would have been lower than 2010,

I think you can be certainly certain.  My 2011 income is going to be less than 2009 ....  :P
I'll beat my 2009 income, but not by much. Although if the rest of this year is like this month so far, I might  well be under.

« Reply #334 on: October 25, 2011, 13:50 »
0
I must be the odd one out, I've already beaten my 2010 income.

« Reply #335 on: October 25, 2011, 14:28 »
0
I must be the odd one out, I've already beaten my 2010 income.

That old expression about not looking a gift horse in the mouth comes to mind :)

Everyone's experiences are going to be a little different - mix of photos and other media (or not), few mega-sellers vs. broad base of good sellers, seasonal specialties, whether you uploaded at a time when a glitch favored (or hampered) future best sellers, best match luck of the draw when a new file catches or doesn't - it's a long list.  Certainly those with a substantial Vetta/Agency presence can have the potential for big wins.

« Reply #336 on: October 25, 2011, 14:42 »
0
vectors might also be a contributing factor ... a "vector panic thread" was just locked on the illus forum

« Reply #337 on: October 25, 2011, 15:10 »
0
I must be the odd one out, I've already beaten my 2010 income.

That old expression about not looking a gift horse in the mouth comes to mind :)

Everyone's experiences are going to be a little different - mix of photos and other media (or not), few mega-sellers vs. broad base of good sellers, seasonal specialties, whether you uploaded at a time when a glitch favored (or hampered) future best sellers, best match luck of the draw when a new file catches or doesn't - it's a long list.  Certainly those with a substantial Vetta/Agency presence can have the potential for big wins.

It's not like I'm talking about a massive forecast drop personally, but it's a worrying trend downward. When the generally accepted best time of the year turns out to be naff as well it gets even more worrying. I've got this nasty feeling that your earlier comment about "When, not if" is right. I've had that feeling for a while now. Painful though the cure may be, I don't know how much longer I can watch this happening.   

« Reply #338 on: October 25, 2011, 15:28 »
0
vectors might also be a contributing factor ... a "vector panic thread" was just locked on the illus forum

It will be interesting to see if some of the long time vector exclusives jump ship. A lot of talent there, but I've often wondered if they'd survive out in the wild.

« Reply #339 on: October 25, 2011, 17:41 »
0
Regarding advice to those IS exclusives thinking about going independent:
I'm not sure that waiting until after December would be good advice for everyone. For most people who don't have a lot of Christmas images, December is by far the weakest month. And for me last year January and March were very strong on all sites (except IS of course) - I would not want to sit out those months in 2012.

Secondly, regarding large % loss of income, no doubt. But another thing to consider is that on the non-IS sites, newer images often have very significant advantages. If I didn't have to resubmit and were given the chance to suddenly make all my images 'new' on all sites, I would do it (except on DT). Back in the day, there were threads on the SS forum about removing and resubmitting images just to make them new.

If my income were back to 2006 levels at IS and I was a crown-wearer and considering going independent, I would get started as soon as possible. Especially if I were a vectorist I wouldn't hesitate a minute.

« Reply #340 on: October 25, 2011, 18:11 »
0
A few years ago, new images had a big advantage with SS but they changed the search and older images now do much better than they used to.  I have redone some old images and uploaded them again but they don't get the sales boost they used to.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #341 on: October 25, 2011, 18:54 »
0
last week was fantastic, this week so far....average-below average. I don't see a major best match shift...but have noticed (and I think someone else might have mentioned it) that when you visit portfolios or perform searches on iStock; every once in a while the default search is not best match. default seems to be file age every x number of searches (don't know what x is equal to, could be random).

when Lobo stated that nothing had changed in best match....could have been a pretty good red herring....that may be true that the best match wasn't changed...however the default search format may be dynamic now. buyers wouldn't necessarily notice they're being presented with newest files first in search results instead of best match sometimes. and it doesn't correspond with my default display settings, nor do I save cookies between browser sessions

sorry if I'm discussing something already discussed. there are too many threads to weed through.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 18:56 by SNP »

traveler1116

« Reply #342 on: October 25, 2011, 22:19 »
0
It's not helping that files aren't showing up in the search.  http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=335317&page=1

RacePhoto

« Reply #343 on: October 25, 2011, 22:56 »
0

Secondly, regarding large % loss of income, no doubt. But another thing to consider is that on the non-IS sites, newer images often have very significant advantages. If I didn't have to resubmit and were given the chance to suddenly make all my images 'new' on all sites, I would do it (except on DT). Back in the day, there were threads on the SS forum about removing and resubmitting images just to make them new.


And if I was SS and found people removing images so they could upload and be new again, gaming the system, I'd lock their accounts and give them a vacation for a month. Small wonder they changed the value of Newness when they figured out people were making more work for the same images, just for some small advantage. Now people with honestly new images will pay for the greedy ones who will do anything for a few more sales.

On the other hand a former exclusive should be able to upload a truckload of new images all at once and with the newness boost make up for one month. It will probably take six months to recover the losses, maybe longer and then with the new reviews and standards, who knows if the old images for the collection will even get accepted.

It's a tough decision.

« Reply #344 on: October 25, 2011, 23:53 »
0
last week was fantastic, this week so far....average-below average. I don't see a major best match shift...but have noticed (and I think someone else might have mentioned it) that when you visit portfolios or perform searches on iStock; every once in a while the default search is not best match. default seems to be file age every x number of searches (don't know what x is equal to, could be random).

when Lobo stated that nothing had changed in best match....could have been a pretty good red herring....that may be true that the best match wasn't changed...however the default search format may be dynamic now. buyers wouldn't necessarily notice they're being presented with newest files first in search results instead of best match sometimes. and it doesn't correspond with my default display settings, nor do I save cookies between browser sessions

sorry if I'm discussing something already discussed. there are too many threads to weed through.

For me its gone from fantastic last week to just above average this week. Either way I've passed the last BME from May this year already this month on both DLs and $$s so have nothing to complain about at the moment. Put in context though the growth in both of these stats is still well below portfolio growth for the same time.

I think at the moment we're seeing such a divergence of outcomes because there are so many factors at play - for some the best match shifts are a huge factor, others have lots of new files that are benefiting, & some may be starting to suffer from the "attack of the clones", by which I mean there are a small but significant number of producers pumping out the stock look in the high selling categories which may be starting to dilute earnings.

« Reply #345 on: October 26, 2011, 05:03 »
0
Here is an interesting interview with Kelly.
Interview with Kelly Thompson, iStockphoto / Getty Images

« Reply #346 on: October 26, 2011, 05:40 »
0
That interview is hard to watch.  No questions about falling earnings, losing buyers to other sites and how they have lost the good will of lots of contributors.  I know they want to give the impression that everything going great but its so opposite to reality.

If they want to bury their heads in the sand, that's fine but they should be looking at what's really happening.  I have even less confidence in the future of istock if they aren't addressing issues that have lost them buyers and ruined their reputation with lots of contributors.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #347 on: October 26, 2011, 05:44 »
0
last week was fantastic, this week so far....average-below average. I don't see a major best match shift...but have noticed (and I think someone else might have mentioned it) that when you visit portfolios or perform searches on iStock; every once in a while the default search is not best match. default seems to be file age every x number of searches (don't know what x is equal to, could be random).

when Lobo stated that nothing had changed in best match....could have been a pretty good red herring....that may be true that the best match wasn't changed...however the default search format may be dynamic now. buyers wouldn't necessarily notice they're being presented with newest files first in search results instead of best match sometimes. and it doesn't correspond with my default display settings, nor do I save cookies between browser sessions

sorry if I'm discussing something already discussed. there are too many threads to weed through.

I haven't noticed the default search changing (that would be very annoying if a searcher has deliberately chosen a particular sort order), but the best match is changing. Out of badness - and because I have no files to process - I've been checking daily on Ed's Queleas masquerading as African Elephant. Yesterday lunchtime UK they were at positions 14 and 15 (up from the weekend) and today they are 46 & 47. Interesting that they never get separated. New files are only getting a very short time in the sun - one of mine which sold within a few days of acceptance two weeks ago is at 65. So definitely, the best match is still changing virtually dailly, no matter what Lobo said.

« Reply #348 on: October 26, 2011, 06:25 »
0
Of course, the match itself will change as files age, some are bought and new ones arrive. It's bound to shuffle arround every time it is recalculated but that doesn't tell you whether the algorithm constructing the match has changed. It's algorithm changes that send everything haywire.

helix7

« Reply #349 on: October 26, 2011, 06:53 »
0
That interview is hard to watch.  No questions about falling earnings, losing buyers to other sites and how they have lost the good will of lots of contributors...

Amos has an expo to run, he's not going to get on the bad side of a top istock exec. I wouldn't expect a guy in his position to ask the tough questions. Maybe some random blogger would, but then again some random blogger wouldn't land an interview with Kelly.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
6391 Views
Last post October 25, 2011, 01:02
by MicrostockExp
17 Replies
5991 Views
Last post September 18, 2012, 15:44
by tavi
2 Replies
5455 Views
Last post March 16, 2016, 06:25
by mirkic
17 Replies
5529 Views
Last post May 04, 2017, 16:38
by heywoody
28 Replies
13502 Views
Last post July 25, 2017, 01:34
by zorandim

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors