MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales have tanked big time  (Read 180458 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #500 on: November 03, 2011, 05:34 »
0
This Friday was really terrible. Thursday was ok. The previous Friday was surprisingly good. They must be tweaking the best match.

In the US, world series game 7 was Friday night. Things like that affect sales too :)

The World series? How did the UK do?  ;)


Slovenian

« Reply #501 on: November 03, 2011, 05:46 »
0
It looks like sales are peaking according to the poll results on the right. +0.16 up, that's pretty decent.

I'm thinking about becoming exclusive ;)

helix7

« Reply #502 on: November 03, 2011, 08:41 »
0
You're winking .... but we're all coming.  Soon.    ;)

I believe it. But you know what, as much as I hate the idea of more competition, I think this would be good for the industry. I've been saying for a while now that it would be good for the stock business if istock became a less significant player or went away completely, and that could happen quickly if they lose their exclusive advantage. My earnings may suffer a little due to an influx of images from former exclusives, but in the long run I think it's better for everyone if istock suffers.

Right now there's this mentality in the microstock world that if you follow istock's example you can jack up prices, grab more money from artists, and rake in more profits. It would send a powerful message to companies like Fotolia who seem keen on following istock's example if the istock strategy starts to cause the company to implode. These companies might change their philosophies if they see that the greedy practices of istock resulted in serious damage to the company.

« Reply #503 on: November 03, 2011, 10:13 »
0
You're winking .... but we're all coming.  Soon.    ;)

I believe it. But you know what, as much as I hate the idea of more competition, I think this would be good for the industry. I've been saying for a while now that it would be good for the stock business if istock became a less significant player or went away completely, and that could happen quickly if they lose their exclusive advantage. My earnings may suffer a little due to an influx of images from former exclusives, but in the long run I think it's better for everyone if istock suffers.

Right now there's this mentality in the microstock world that if you follow istock's example you can jack up prices, grab more money from artists, and rake in more profits. It would send a powerful message to companies like Fotolia who seem keen on following istock's example if the istock strategy starts to cause the company to implode. These companies might change their philosophies if they see that the greedy practices of istock resulted in serious damage to the company.

I agree, Istock found out the hard way, how many of its contributors were linked to the buyer communities or were buyers themselves.  It did not take long for  sentiment on the buyer and submitter side to change and word to spread.  It is a good wake up call for our communities as well, we are not so helpless as we believe ourselves to be. I do think there is room for higher pricing on premium product, however it has to be a win win for everyone involved.

lisafx

« Reply #504 on: November 03, 2011, 16:54 »
0
You're winking .... but we're all coming.  Soon.    ;)

I believe it. But you know what, as much as I hate the idea of more competition, I think this would be good for the industry. I've been saying for a while now that it would be good for the stock business if istock became a less significant player or went away completely, and that could happen quickly if they lose their exclusive advantage. My earnings may suffer a little due to an influx of images from former exclusives, but in the long run I think it's better for everyone if istock suffers.

Right now there's this mentality in the microstock world that if you follow istock's example you can jack up prices, grab more money from artists, and rake in more profits. It would send a powerful message to companies like Fotolia who seem keen on following istock's example if the istock strategy starts to cause the company to implode. These companies might change their philosophies if they see that the greedy practices of istock resulted in serious damage to the company.

Really excellent points Mike.  I shudder to think of the hit my income is likely to take if a flood of top exclusives signs up at the other sites, but it certainly will be a cautionary tale for the other agencies.  To be honest, I think Istock's plummeting sales and traffic stats should already be giving the other sites something to think about. 

« Reply #505 on: November 03, 2011, 17:20 »
0
It appears if istock sales are plummeting then all the large independents who currently dominate the best match on the other sites will be competing on price only.  Then watch the race to the bottom on earnings.  There is a reason coke doesn't allow their exact same product to be sold in cheaper bottles on the same store shelves.  Istock woes began with the dutch indie and then became worse with the english zoo lady dominating best match against their exclusives. 

« Reply #506 on: November 03, 2011, 17:51 »
0
It appears if istock sales are plummeting then all the large independents who currently dominate the best match on the other sites will be competing on price only.  Then watch the race to the bottom on earnings.  There is a reason coke doesn't allow their exact same product to be sold in cheaper bottles on the same store shelves.  Istock woes began with the dutch indie and then became worse with the english zoo lady dominating best match against their exclusives. 

Can we have a translation?

« Reply #507 on: November 03, 2011, 17:55 »
0
It appears if istock sales are plummeting then all the large independents who currently dominate the best match on the other sites will be competing on price only.  Then watch the race to the bottom on earnings.   

It's not strictly about price. Istock got away with higher prices than others for years. It's also about not pissing off your buyers, who often just happen to be your contributors. Both IS and FT did precisely that and now they both appear to be suffering a similar fate, much to the benefit of SS and DT. The shift in traffic suggests to me that it's not about 'cheaper', it's actually about 'fairer'. If that is truly the case then IS and FT have created a big problem for themselves.

« Reply #508 on: November 03, 2011, 19:17 »
0
...Istock woes began with the dutch indie and then became worse with the english zoo lady dominating best match against their exclusives. 

I don't know what this means. I think it might be referring to Yuri Arcurs (who I think is Danish, not Dutch) and Monkey Business Images. In addition to those folks being highly successful for a long time prior to iStock's recent series of own goals - which would suggest that they weren't responsible for any decline - I think the mass of very talented iStock top-producer exclusives might take offense at the idea that two contributors were so good they just lost in a fair fight to better images.

How about all the Getty stuff in the Agency Collection that flooded iStock? The jacking up of Vetta prices so the content price levels would mesh (after which they had to have a Vetta sale with double the RCs for the lucky club members because sales tanked)? The endless broken site features...

Talk about revisionist history...

helix7

« Reply #509 on: November 03, 2011, 21:24 »
0
...Istock woes began with the dutch indie and then became worse with the english zoo lady dominating best match against their exclusives.

istock woes began with steady price increases, to the point where they priced themselves out of microstock and into some sort of midstock business model. Then they piled on with Vetta, Agency, Plus systems, etc., and eventually had buyers' heads spinning with all of these crazy pricing tiers and double and triple digit credit costs per image. They also slowly pushed the cost per credit up beyond $1.50. They treated their customers like they were idiots who didn't know any better and couldn't do the basic math required to figure out that they were getting screwed.

And finally, just to put the icing on the whole thing, they cut contributor pay, grabbed back money from fraudulent purchases that should have been the responsibility of the company to cover, and are now instituting this forced-inclusion image distribution plan (ThinkStock et al), effectively burning most bridges with the very artists they need the support of. Oh, and then added insult to injury by asking us to participate in their new referral program to help bring in some new business to replace what is being lost.

Or I'm wrong, you're right, and it's all Yuri's fault. ;)

« Reply #510 on: November 03, 2011, 22:17 »
0
istock woes began with steady price increases, to the point where they priced themselves out of microstock and into some sort of midstock business model.

To be honest, I really don't know what you're talking about. Their vector pricing is still relatively competitive with other agencies. Yes, they top out at some high prices, but they are still between $15-$30 for most vectors. That's not much different than DT or single sales at SS.

I have no love for IS (I deleted my images there), but I just don't see your argument when it comes to outrageous pricing (for vectors at least). If anything, other agencies should probably be closer to their prices.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2011, 22:18 by cthoman »

helix7

« Reply #511 on: November 04, 2011, 00:04 »
0
...To be honest, I really don't know what you're talking about. Their vector pricing is still relatively competitive with other agencies...

Sure, for vectors, especially relative to DT and a few others istock's pricing is comparable. Unfortunately for us, buyers are still mostly looking for photos, and they are driven by photo prices. It doesn't matter if vectors are similarly priced, if someone can't get a reasonably priced photo at istock they're taking all of their business elsewhere. And when you've got alternatives like StockFresh, BigStock, etc. that are much cheaper for both types of imagery, then I think it's safe to say that pricing has been a factor in buyers looking beyond istock.

I'm not saying that their vector pricing is crazy, but on the whole istock's pricing is quite high and it takes some significant work to find comparably priced photos. That's something that I'm sure has been an issue with buyers.

RacePhoto

« Reply #512 on: November 04, 2011, 00:59 »
0
...Istock woes began with the dutch indie and then became worse with the english zoo lady dominating best match against their exclusives.  


I don't know what this means. I think it might be referring to Yuri Arcurs (who I think is Danish, not Dutch) and Monkey Business Images. In addition to those folks being highly successful for a long time prior to iStock's recent series of own goals - which would suggest that they weren't responsible for any decline - I think the mass of very talented iStock top-producer exclusives might take offense at the idea that two contributors were so good they just lost in a fair fight to better images.

How about all the Getty stuff in the Agency Collection that flooded iStock? The jacking up of Vetta prices so the content price levels would mesh (after which they had to have a Vetta sale with double the RCs for the lucky club members because sales tanked)? The endless broken site features...

Talk about revisionist history...


Interesting. If someone hadn't pointed it out (and without your very helpful translation) I never would have noticed that Monkeybusinessimages moved from #13 in July to currently #10 on IS. Nice work and not exactly slipping past some small time creative people. That's some major work.

Two of the top ten are non-exclusive? Did I get that right?

« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 03:02 by RacePhoto »

lagereek

« Reply #513 on: November 04, 2011, 01:40 »
0
Helix7!  makes a brillant point!  apart from that,  just look at the October earnings thread at IS. That says it all. The only ones reporting any form of increase are little bronze and silver members and thats the way IS, wants it, they are the faithful contributors of tomorrow. They cant fool the top-contributors anymore and the black-diamonds will stay anyway. The rescue will be in the smaller guys, untill they get bigger and impossible to manipulate and then... its time for a new lot, coming in,  its a numbers game.

Lisa!  no need to fear any top-exclusives coming to other sites and even if they did? look at their ports, 9 out of 10, all shoot lifestyles, almost identical imagery. They kill off each other.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 01:42 by lagereek »

tee

« Reply #514 on: November 04, 2011, 02:29 »
0
I'd sort of been ignoring my stats, but checked them out of curiosity because of all these shenanigans. I've been using a third-party site to track views and clicks for my most popular images:



Clicks actually haven't gone down too much (except for October, which saw a big drop), but views show quite a downward trend. Of course this is just for me, but I wonder who else shares similar results.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 02:31 by tee »

« Reply #515 on: November 04, 2011, 08:38 »
0
The point is "the #1 microstock guy in the world, heck maybe even the universe" is seeing a slip in sales.  I don't care about the other sites since my wagon is hitched to istock.  But if you look at every other site on the list to the right over there, you see the same independents dominating the best match on all sites.  Istock by allowing too many indies at the top of their best match seems to have to taken short term gain and now is experiencing long term pain.

 What I would not do as a buyer is buy any independent work from istock.   The same exact photos is way cheaper on the other sites that compete only on price.   Maybe the buyers are figuring this out.  So your dipping sales at istock is costing you $$$ too.  What else are they competing on if every indie is on there site with the same work.    If a can get the dutch candy bar for $.35 at X why would I pay $2.50 at Y if they are the same and they are. 

« Reply #516 on: November 04, 2011, 09:25 »
0
The point is "the #1 microstock guy in the world, heck maybe even the universe" is seeing a slip in sales.  I don't care about the other sites since my wagon is hitched to istock.  But if you look at every other site on the list to the right over there, you see the same independents dominating the best match on all sites.  Istock by allowing too many indies at the top of their best match seems to have to taken short term gain and now is experiencing long term pain.

 What I would not do as a buyer is buy any independent work from istock.   The same exact photos is way cheaper on the other sites that compete only on price.   Maybe the buyers are figuring this out.  So your dipping sales at istock is costing you $$$ too.  What else are they competing on if every indie is on there site with the same work.    If a can get the dutch candy bar for $.35 at X why would I pay $2.50 at Y if they are the same and they are. 

That suits me just fine. The images might be cheaper elsewhere but the % commission is far higher. If that's what is happening then it is costing Istock far more than me.

Of course you contradict your theory in your first statement anyway. If 'indies' are dominating the best match then it can only be due to buyers choosing to purchase their work at Istock rather than elsewhere __ which obviously disproves your second point.

RT


« Reply #517 on: November 04, 2011, 09:40 »
0
If a can get the dutch candy bar for $.35 at X why would I pay $2.50 at Y if they are the same and they are. 

So you'll support all your images at iS being transferred to Thinkstock and then support all the iS buyers buying them via a Thinkstock subscription then?

lisafx

« Reply #518 on: November 04, 2011, 09:44 »
0

 What I would not do as a buyer is buy any independent work from istock.   The same exact photos is way cheaper on the other sites that compete only on price.   Maybe the buyers are figuring this out.  So your dipping sales at istock is costing you $$$ too.  

If your theory were correct, then why are the top exclusives reporting big drops in sales and declining income?  

The thing that's getting lost in this discussion is that buyers aren't all that price sensitive at microstock prices.  Service and convenience are huge factors, and Istock's customer service and site usability took a huge dive, at the same time as the prices of the most visible images in the best match jumped tenfold.  A very bad combination.

« Reply #519 on: November 04, 2011, 09:49 »
0
...Istock by allowing too many indies at the top of their best match seems to have to taken short term gain and now is experiencing long term pain....
I very much doubt that's the reason why buyers have left.  I think buyers have left because there's too many different prices.  They find what they want and its too expensive.  The search changes all the time, nothing seems to be stable.  They can filter by price now but it took too long to get that and they end up with just independents images that they can see much more of on the other sites.  The upload limits and low commissions mean that the other sites have a lot more to offer from independents than istock.

« Reply #520 on: November 04, 2011, 09:55 »
0
The answer is very simple - customers have a price sliders. And a choice of course - after all these troubles with overpriced flood (we call it 'sheet').

lisafx

« Reply #521 on: November 04, 2011, 10:04 »
0
I'd like to see stats on how many buyers are actually using the price slider. I don't think it is obvious to buyers and I doubt they are using it much.  Totally defies the KISS rule.  Much like the CV and the various other search functionalities, it requires too much effort to learn and is probably just confusing to buyers. 

Other sites are much more simple to use.  It's no coincidence that the site seeing the biggest jump in sales is the one that uses a simple, effective search and presents all images at the same price. 

lagereek

« Reply #522 on: November 04, 2011, 10:07 »
0
The answer is very simple - customers have a price sliders. And a choice of course - after all these troubles with overpriced flood (we call it 'sheet').

Rubbish!  it was meant to fool customers into thinking it was a quality-slider but they didnt buy that stuff and saw as good images on other major sites,  consequently, nobody use the stupid thing.

« Reply #523 on: November 04, 2011, 10:22 »
0
I'd like to see stats on how many buyers are actually using the price slider. I don't think it is obvious to buyers and I doubt they are using it much.  Totally defies the KISS rule.  Much like the CV and the various other search functionalities, it requires too much effort to learn and is probably just confusing to buyers. 

Other sites are much more simple to use.  It's no coincidence that the site seeing the biggest jump in sales is the one that uses a simple, effective search and presents all images at the same price. 

I would venture they are using it, since the "How do I hide V/A images" posts have dropped to zero since it's introduction.  Ok, maybe there was one.

« Reply #524 on: November 04, 2011, 10:55 »
0
...Istock by allowing too many indies at the top of their best match seems to have to taken short term gain and now is experiencing long term pain....
I very much doubt that's the reason why buyers have left.  I think buyers have left because there's too many different prices.  They find what they want and its too expensive.  The search changes all the time, nothing seems to be stable.  They can filter by price now but it took too long to get that and they end up with just independents images that they can see much more of on the other sites.  The upload limits and low commissions mean that the other sites have a lot more to offer from independents than istock.


So the other sites compete on what exactly.... price...  what else is there to compete on.   If in the end the same image appears on my computer, then what does it matter on how many clicks it takes or what the portal looks like.  It seems to me independents are competing against themselves solely on price and unless I am an new to earth that will have to be lower in the future.   


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
6390 Views
Last post October 25, 2011, 01:02
by MicrostockExp
17 Replies
5988 Views
Last post September 18, 2012, 15:44
by tavi
2 Replies
5454 Views
Last post March 16, 2016, 06:25
by mirkic
17 Replies
5528 Views
Last post May 04, 2017, 16:38
by heywoody
28 Replies
13497 Views
Last post July 25, 2017, 01:34
by zorandim

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors