MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales have tanked big time  (Read 180575 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #550 on: November 04, 2011, 15:33 »
0


Thanks very much for posting this.  Really summarizes the situation perfectly. 

We contributors can hypothesize until we are blue in the face, but nothing makes the point as succinctly as an actual volume buyer willing to share their experience. 


Really, I would jump through hoops and deal with all sorts of inconveniences if it meant saving a lot of money of for the exact same image form the exact same artist.  I am sure I would get used to dealing with a little "less than optimal supplier" if the image is the same.  Who cares about which discounter I have to go to.   I have no advantage to buying at a higher price. 

A good number of our buyers are are paid an hourly or monthly salary and have bosses who watch their productivity closely.  The last thing those department heads or owners want to see is employees who spend unnecessary time searching for images.  In regard to bottom line spending a bit more for an image is more cost effective for the company than paying hourly wages to employees who spend unproductive billable time online using cobbled up searches that return poor results for the project.


lisafx

« Reply #551 on: November 04, 2011, 15:37 »
0


Really, I would jump through hoops and deal with all sorts of inconveniences if it meant saving a lot of money of for the exact same image form the exact same artist.  I am sure I would get used to dealing with a little "less than optimal supplier" if the image is the same.  

This is a false dichotomy.  Nobody has to make the choice between price and convenience.  There are plenty of sites that provide both (SS, DT, and lots of the smaller ones).  

By contrast, Istock is both inconvenient AND high priced.  Thus the mass exodus of buyers.  

Great points above, Allistair, BTW.  

« Reply #552 on: November 04, 2011, 15:39 »
0


Thanks very much for posting this.  Really summarizes the situation perfectly. 

We contributors can hypothesize until we are blue in the face, but nothing makes the point as succinctly as an actual volume buyer willing to share their experience. 

Really, I would jump through hoops and deal with all sorts of inconveniences if it meant saving a lot of money of for the exact same image form the exact same artist.  I am sure I would get used to dealing with a little "less than optimal supplier" if the image is the same.  Who cares about which discounter I have to go to.   I have no advantage to buying at a higher price. 

A good number of our buyers are are paid an hourly or monthly salary and have bosses who watch their productivity closely.  The last thing those department heads or owners want to see is employees who spend unnecessary time searching for images.  In regard to bottom line spending a bit more for an image is more cost effective for the company than paying hourly wages to employees who spend unproductive billable time online using cobbled up searches that return poor results for the project.

What do you mean poor results?  Every agency has the same top independents at the top of their best match.  It is very homogeneous. 

« Reply #553 on: November 04, 2011, 16:11 »
0
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.   

Why are you so obsessed about price? Particularly without ever mentioning volume, which of course is primarily what microstock is supposed to be about. Surely if PRICE were everything, as it appears you do, you should be selling only RM licenses at macro agencies.

Is it not the case that if Istock are faltering it is most likely because they have completely forgotten the founding principles of 'microstock' that they claim to have invented? They also turned 'crowdsourcing' into 'crowdshafting' whilst they were at it. They've jacked up the prices of their images, their credits and introduced expensive collections so many times that they barely still qualify to be described as a 'microstock agency'.

When I started with Istock I think about the most a buyer could spend on a full-size image, any image at all, was $1. Now it is over $400. Even the average image price must have gone from about 50c to what, something like $15? As an independent my average image sale costs the buyer just over $9 but obviously most exclusive images cost more. Then they have the cheek to call it 'unsustainable' and reduce our commissions. You really couldn't make this stuff up.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #554 on: November 04, 2011, 16:14 »
0
oh come now gostwyck - you're a smartie pants, you can work the search.....and something tells me that buyers aren't as stupid as people are making them sound in this thread...

WarrenPrice

« Reply #555 on: November 04, 2011, 16:20 »
0
oh come now gostwyck - you're a smartie pants, you can work the search.....and something tells me that buyers aren't as stupid as people are making them sound in this thread...

I confess to NOT being smart enough to follow this thread.  Are buyers leaving or not?  If so, why?  If not, why?

« Reply #556 on: November 04, 2011, 17:11 »
0
oh come now gostwyck - you're a smartie pants, you can work the search.....and something tells me that buyers aren't as stupid as people are making them sound in this thread...


Of course we can. That's because we've spent years of our lives on these sites and have lived through all the developments. My point was to contradict your statement that Istock's search facility was 'the best'. I honestly don't think it is. It is certainly the most complex but I think it is one of the worst in terms of useability for all but the 'expert' buyer.

Anyway, the combination of 'good enough' and 'cheap' will always beat 'complex/better' and 'expensive' in the long run. Think Betamax v VHS for example. Apple may have invented the smartphone but already they only have 14.5% market share against Samsung's 20%;

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57318644-37/samsung-outshines-apple-in-smartphone-shipments-market-share/

« Reply #557 on: November 04, 2011, 17:13 »
0
re: iStock's search: iStock's search capabilities are amazing these days. despite the odd technical hiccups, which occur everywhere, iStock's search allows you just about any combination of parameters to find images you're searching for quickly at various price points. say what you will, but iStock's search is probably the best search in the business right now, the CV notwithstanding.

It might be 'amazing' but not every buyer has the time to take evening classes to work out to to use it or learn Istock's 'special language'.

IMHO, SS's search engine is vastly superior to IS's. It is much faster in producing results, adding filters, choosing orientation, etc. Most importantly it is totally intuitive, even for novice buyers. The buyer doesn't need to learn all about price sliders because all images cost the same.

Want to find images of a small obscure place or particular flora or fauna? You can do that on SS whilst IS will often either find zero results or automatically choose a more mainstream choice for you. How frustrating for both buyers and contributors alike.

If you sold through SS or DT, where you can see the keywords actually used by the buyer, you be 'amazed' just how many times an image is found using keywords that IS would simply not allow or cater for despite the word being appropriate. The CV is simply not flexible enough to allow buyers to quickly find what they want.

Anyway, it seems to me that the buyers are making it pretty clear where they prefer to do business. So far this month my earnings at SS are almost double those at IS. The gap is widening on a monthly basis.

"The CV is simply not flexible enough to allow buyers to quickly find what they want need."

"Want to find images of a small obscure needed place or particular flora or fauna? You can do that on SS whilst IS will often either find zero results or automatically choose a more mainstream choice for you. How frustrating for both buyers and contributors alike."

Bingo and to be honest SS needs to improve their search results.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 17:23 by gbalex »

« Reply #558 on: November 04, 2011, 17:20 »
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.

"I think buyers have left because there's too many different prices."  Especially when the quality for the different price points is non detectable, minor or even lower quality for higher priced images. 

"The search changes all the time, nothing seems to be stable."  Absolutely and add to that the search breaking down constantly (to be fair would not know what it is like lately)

"The upload limits and low commissions mean that the other sites have a lot more to offer from independents than istock." There is a flip side to this at sites like SS.  With years of keyword spamming and thousands of low quality images to slog through; it takes too much time to wade through the volumes of images to secure the images that we need.

Slovenian

« Reply #559 on: November 04, 2011, 17:21 »
0
I already wrote that, but no one bothered replying. So I'll ask again: where are you getting the idea of tanking sales from? The poll is showing THE BIGGEST jump of all the listed agencies. That being said, no, I'm no IS fanboy and my Oct sales dropped 13%. But it seems sales rose for majority of the contributors.

« Reply #560 on: November 04, 2011, 17:21 »
0

...I confess to NOT being smart enough to follow this thread.  Are buyers leaving or not?  If so, why?  If not, why?

The agencies might know the answers to this question (and iStock's recent surveys certainly asked questions that suggested they were trying to figure this out) but I doubt they're saying.

Contributors are just left trying to explain what they see with logical sounding explanations that fit the facts. Our own experience isn't data, but we don't have much else.

When I see the sales thread for October and the large number of talented major players who are seeing poor results - many of whom are uploading regularly, in quantity, and doing all the things the cheerleaders say people need to do - I think iStock has problems. I've seen years worth of these threads and it's never been like this before.

« Reply #561 on: November 04, 2011, 17:27 »
0
I already wrote that, but no one bothered replying. So I'll ask again: where are you getting the idea of tanking sales from? The poll is showing THE BIGGEST jump of all the listed agencies. That being said, no, I'm no IS fanboy and my Oct sales dropped 13%. But it seems sales rose for majority of the contributors.

That's because 'the poll' is utterly meaningless. It is based on self-selecting participants, without weighting for portfolio size or sales volume and has no statistical validity at all. What is to stop an exclusive contributor from giving IS a positive result and others negative for example? Personally I never even notice it much less actually participate.

lagereek

« Reply #562 on: November 04, 2011, 17:34 »
0
We shop for images at sites that make it easy to find the product we need in the least amount of time.  The money we make is very time dependent so wading through the mess at IS is counter productive and time consuming.  We need what we need and NOT the images that will make them the most money.

What mess?  You've actually got the most filtering ability I've seen anywhere.  Price, copyspace, color, orientation, etc. etc.

Sean!  isnt that exactly what gbalex, is saying, who has got the time for all this filtering, ticking here and there, price-sliders, orientations, collections, etc. Isnt that exactly the "mess" a buyer wants to avoid?

RT


« Reply #563 on: November 04, 2011, 17:37 »
0
Really, I would jump through hoops and deal with all sorts of inconveniences if it meant saving a lot of money of for the exact same image form the exact same artist.  I am sure I would get used to dealing with a little "less than optimal supplier" if the image is the same.  Who cares about which discounter I have to go to.   I have no advantage to buying at a higher price. 

Have you considered that not everyone has the same ideals as you, I expect many of iStocks buyers are buying there because that's where the company they work for has the account, they might not have the choice of shopping elsewhere and probably don't care.

Then there's buyers who have gone to iStock as the result of iStock's marketing campaign, last iStock add I saw never mentioned anything along the lines of "we're iStock but most of the same images are cheaper at site X"

You said 'as a buyer you wouldn't buy an independents images from iStock' which is a surprising statement, without the buyers buying independents work on a site you've elected to be exclusive on, you are in a round about way wishing the demise of the site you've chosen - no independent sales, no independents, no iStock

RacePhoto

« Reply #564 on: November 04, 2011, 17:37 »
0
I already wrote that, but no one bothered replying. So I'll ask again: where are you getting the idea of tanking sales from? The poll is showing THE BIGGEST jump of all the listed agencies. That being said, no, I'm no IS fanboy and my Oct sales dropped 13%. But it seems sales rose for majority of the contributors.

That's because 'the poll' is utterly meaningless. It is based on self-selecting participants, without weighting for portfolio size or sales volume and has no statistical validity at all. What is to stop an exclusive contributor from giving IS a positive result and others negative for example? Personally I never even notice it much less actually participate.

That's also because some people don't seem to understand math.

DepositPhotos    3.4  up 0.3
PhotoDune    3.2 up 0.41

IS up .24 which wouldn't be the biggest jump? Would it?  ::)

Other than that, yes, it's just a poll, people could be gaming it, some people could be ignoring it. It's just a voluntary poll, not some validated scientific study.

Slovenian

« Reply #565 on: November 04, 2011, 17:38 »
0
I already wrote that, but no one bothered replying. So I'll ask again: where are you getting the idea of tanking sales from? The poll is showing THE BIGGEST jump of all the listed agencies. That being said, no, I'm no IS fanboy and my Oct sales dropped 13%. But it seems sales rose for majority of the contributors.

That's because 'the poll' is utterly meaningless. It is based on self-selecting participants, without weighting for portfolio size or sales volume and has no statistical validity at all. What is to stop an exclusive contributor from giving IS a positive result and others negative for example? Personally I never even notice it much less actually participate.

If people were acting according to the example you mentioned, they'd be at the bottom of low earners (since the vast majority of contribs are non-exclusive) :)

(and yes, I get your point;)

« Reply #566 on: November 04, 2011, 17:39 »
0
Few people seem to understand that when you get a memo from the finance manager complaining about rising costs and you research different options and then hold a meeting with the GM and the finance guy and a couple of others, and reach a conclusion that you will establish a new policy transferring your business to another provider, there is no going back.

Few buyers have any commitment to one supplier or another. Managers want stability so that they can quote prices and plan ahead. SS certainly understands that. iS, apparently, doesn't.

« Reply #567 on: November 04, 2011, 17:57 »
0

That's also because some people don't seem to understand math.

<snip>
PhotoDune    3.2 up 0.41

<snip>

Or arrow directions and colours. ;)

« Reply #568 on: November 04, 2011, 18:07 »
0
"Sean!  isnt that exactly what gbalex, is saying, who has got the time for all this filtering, ticking here and there, price-sliders, orientations, collections, etc. Isnt that exactly the "mess" a buyer wants to avoid?"

Not me.  The more options I have to filter, the happier I am.  Why should I page through 100 pages of refrigerators when I know I want a French door, bottom freezer, stainless with led lighting?  Ah 11 choices.  That's time saving.  That's how I narrowed down a recent purchase from a home improvement stores.  I imagine buyers at micros are smart enough to handle a couple of buttons.

« Reply #569 on: November 04, 2011, 18:15 »
0
"Sean!  isnt that exactly what gbalex, is saying, who has got the time for all this filtering, ticking here and there, price-sliders, orientations, collections, etc. Isnt that exactly the "mess" a buyer wants to avoid?"

Not me.  The more options I have to filter, the happier I am.  Why should I page through 100 pages of refrigerators when I know I want a French door, bottom freezer, stainless with led lighting?  Ah 11 choices.  That's time saving.  That's how I narrowed down a recent purchase from a home improvement stores.  I imagine buyers at micros are smart enough to handle a couple of buttons.

Yeah, well, try searching for Blatella germanicus, or the German cockroach (either version) and tell us how efficient the search is.

« Reply #570 on: November 04, 2011, 18:41 »
0
Anyway, the combination of 'good enough' and 'cheap' will always beat 'complex/better' and 'expensive' in the long run. Think Betamax v VHS for example. Apple may have invented the smartphone but already they only have 14.5% market share against Samsung's 20%;

It's off topic, I know, but I just have to respond to these.  First, regarding Beta vs. VHS, Beta was arguably better in terms of image quality, at least in the early days.  But it failed in one major respect: record/play time.  Early Beta could play for an hour, which wasn't nearly enough for movies or other content in the home.  VHS had longer playing time, long enough to satisfy the consumer.  By the time Beta caught up, it was too late.

On to your second claim.  Apple didn't invent the smartphone; they merely made the first one that appealed to most consumers.  I had a Nokia E62, a smartphone by any measure, before the iPhone was announced, and that was six months before the first one shipped.  But it was an awful device, one I cheerfully tossed under the nearest bus the moment I was able to get my hands on an iPhone.

And Samsung likely hasn't outsold Apple in smartphones.  Note that Samsung no longer reports sales of its smartphones, and that the number reported is for shipments to the channel.  Apple reports the number it has actually sold.  It is, you will pardon the expression, comparing apples and oranges to talk shipments to the channel vs. shipments to paying customers.

traveler1116

« Reply #571 on: November 04, 2011, 18:56 »
0
"Sean!  isnt that exactly what gbalex, is saying, who has got the time for all this filtering, ticking here and there, price-sliders, orientations, collections, etc. Isnt that exactly the "mess" a buyer wants to avoid?"

Not me.  The more options I have to filter, the happier I am.  Why should I page through 100 pages of refrigerators when I know I want a French door, bottom freezer, stainless with led lighting?  Ah 11 choices.  That's time saving.  That's how I narrowed down a recent purchase from a home improvement stores.  I imagine buyers at micros are smart enough to handle a couple of buttons.

Yeah, well, try searching for Blatella germanicus, or the German cockroach (either version) and tell us how efficient the search is.

I'm not sure I get it?  On shuttestock there are 0 "Blatella germanicus" and just 1 "german cockroach" while there are 0 zero of either on istock.  What does this tell us?  
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 19:02 by traveler1116 »

« Reply #572 on: November 04, 2011, 18:57 »
0
^^^ Fair points (you forgot to mention the Philips 2000 system which was apparently superior to Betamax and also video stores mainly stocked VHS movies).

However I'm sure that people will dream up all sorts of excuses, qualifications, differences in markets, etc, etc to explain that Shutterstock only beat Istock because .... (get those excuses ready for later insertion). The truth is that SS is easier, quicker, cheaper and more than 'good enough' for most buyers' needs and therefore it is a racing certainty that it will prevail. Most independents would probably say that it already has.

« Reply #573 on: November 04, 2011, 18:58 »
0
Apple may have invented the smartphone but already they only have 14.5% market share against Samsung's 20%;

(Off-topic). Apple didn't invent the smartphone. But I would not call their 14.5% "only". 14.5% is pretty impressive considering they have only one model. I don't know how many smartphones for example Nokia has, maybe twenty?

« Reply #574 on: November 04, 2011, 18:59 »
0
I'm not sure I get it?  On shuttestock there are 0 "Blatella germanicus" and just 1 "german coackroach" while there are 0 zero of either on istock.  What does this tell us?  

If you spelt 'cockroach' differently you'd get different results.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 19:01 by gostwyck »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
6391 Views
Last post October 25, 2011, 01:02
by MicrostockExp
17 Replies
5995 Views
Last post September 18, 2012, 15:44
by tavi
2 Replies
5460 Views
Last post March 16, 2016, 06:25
by mirkic
17 Replies
5533 Views
Last post May 04, 2017, 16:38
by heywoody
28 Replies
13519 Views
Last post July 25, 2017, 01:34
by zorandim

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors