MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales have tanked big time  (Read 180454 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

traveler1116

« Reply #575 on: November 04, 2011, 19:03 »
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.
Fixed the spelling, I searched using the correct spelling though so that doesn't change.


« Reply #576 on: November 04, 2011, 19:08 »
0
(Off-topic). Apple didn't invent the smartphone.


Try telling that to the late Mr Jobs;

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-apple-google-20111104,0,1939553.story

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #577 on: November 04, 2011, 19:45 »
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.
Fixed the spelling, I searched using the correct spelling though so that doesn't change.
I got one searching on Blattella germanica (the endings must agree) (#1219653). Maybe all it says is that microstockers don't like shooting German Cockroaches?

« Reply #578 on: November 04, 2011, 19:54 »
0
(Off-topic). Apple didn't invent the smartphone.


Try telling that to the late Mr Jobs;

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-apple-google-20111104,0,1939553.story


Did you read the article?  Carefully?  Jobs never claimed to have invented the smartphone.  What he did claim was that Android was a ripoff of the smartphone technology developed by Apple.  Those are two different claims.

« Reply #579 on: November 04, 2011, 20:17 »
0
But it seems sales rose for majority of the contributors.

I would suggest that sales rose for the majority of silver and below canisters which would make the bulk of most members but not necessarily the bulk of all images, hence why the poll on the right has raised and hence why the majority of gold, diamond and above are reporting terrible sales in the IS October thread. If it is this scenario, then the poll on the right will certainly drop down within the next couple of months as this can't be sustainable.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 20:28 by cybernesco »

« Reply #580 on: November 04, 2011, 20:33 »
0
Did you read the article?  Carefully?  Jobs never claimed to have invented the smartphone.  What he did claim was that Android was a ripoff of the smartphone technology developed by Apple.  Those are two different claims.

Ok, not 'smartphone' then but their operating system (depends just how far you insist on going into the technical semantics). I'm not exactly a phone buff, I use a 10-year old Nokia 6310i. It's great for phone calls and that's about as 'smart' as a phone can get IMO. Don't understand people paying all that money for iPhones when as soon as you hold it up to your ear it covers the aerial and you don't get reception. Guess you're right __ Jobs certainly didn't invent the 'smartphone' with that particular model.

It doesn't change the observation that a superior and higher-priced product will almost always lose out to a 'good enough' cheaper competitor. Thus Istock's search facility can have all the bells and whistles it likes but, even if they could get it to work properly, it is unlikely to do them much good.

RacePhoto

« Reply #581 on: November 04, 2011, 23:47 »
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.

Right, and if someone is smart enough to not try to trick a search and instead act like a buyer, using only the word "roach" or "cockroach" ???

Roach Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
Displaying results 1 - 150 of 1,215.

Cockroach Stock Photos, Illustrations, and Vector Art
Displaying results 1 - 150 of 1,257

Darn I thought I found a magic niche that needed images. False alarm.

BTW IS 569 for Roach or Cockroach, probably CV at work.

lagereek

« Reply #582 on: November 05, 2011, 02:05 »
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. 

Listen to yourself!  what you are saying?  so if you found the perfect image for your client, etc, you wouldnt buy because of your own personal attitude?  how do you justify that to a client? you bought the second best because the best was the work of an independant. Jeez!  talk about unprofessional. Terrible attitude and naive to the point of sublimity.
Its like me turning down a commission because I dont like the companys political color.

Buyers like you are the last of its kind, the only ones that keeps IS alive. I sincerely hope that when the day comes, they will furnish you with a Diamond crown and thank God we dont have this sort of attitude in other agencies.

« Reply #583 on: November 05, 2011, 04:47 »
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.
Fixed the spelling, I searched using the correct spelling though so that doesn't change.

Well, searching for German cockroach (no quotes) on SS brought up a couple of dozen.

My point (which I thought was obvious) was that Sean said you can use the iStock search with amazing effectiveness that other searches don't match .... but that is only true if you choose terms that they happen to have included in the CV - and most of the things in the world aren't in it, especially if you get very specific.

There must be quite a lot of buyers down the years who have been frustrated by being unable to find any results for something or other, even if there are files for it, because it is disallowed by the CV. Forcing people to go to rival agencies because you value your theory about searching more than making sales is just dumb, but that's where iStock has been for years.

Slovenian

« Reply #584 on: November 05, 2011, 04:54 »
0
But it seems sales rose for majority of the contributors.

I would suggest that sales rose for the majority of silver and below canisters which would make the bulk of most members but not necessarily the bulk of all images, hence why the poll on the right has raised and hence why the majority of gold, diamond and above are reporting terrible sales in the IS October thread. If it is this scenario, then the poll on the right will certainly drop down within the next couple of months as this can't be sustainable.

I don't know why all of you ppl are constantly giving so much significance to top contributors. Are they more important than the rest? If anyone can afford the drop, it's them, who made hundreds of thousands or even millions. They built their houses with ms earnings etc and now they're whining because they probably won't be able to buy that second Porsche. While someone making just barely enough to live on won't be able to pay the bills and feed themselves. If anything I support the shift in earnings towards lower canisters. It's time they don't get favourised by search engines. Many of the diamonds or even BDs, really have average or even below average content that still sells great, because their files didn't loose the momentum they've picked up in 2004/05, when just about anything sold. And that's just wrong with so much great, awesome and original content being uploaded and buried because of those, photographically speaking, lousy files, that wouldn't get more than a sale or 2 today, most of them wouldn't sell at all, instead of having flames. Just the other day I came across total sale number of a diamond that still sells like crazy, but when I checked the port I almost threw up.

lagereek

« Reply #585 on: November 05, 2011, 05:18 »
0
But it seems sales rose for majority of the contributors.

I would suggest that sales rose for the majority of silver and below canisters which would make the bulk of most members but not necessarily the bulk of all images, hence why the poll on the right has raised and hence why the majority of gold, diamond and above are reporting terrible sales in the IS October thread. If it is this scenario, then the poll on the right will certainly drop down within the next couple of months as this can't be sustainable.

I don't know why all of you ppl are constantly giving so much significance to top contributors. Are they more important than the rest? If anyone can afford the drop, it's them, who made hundreds of thousands or even millions. They built their houses with ms earnings etc and now they're whining because they probably won't be able to buy that second Porsche. While someone making just barely enough to live on won't be able to pay the bills and feed themselves. If anything I support the shift in earnings towards lower canisters. It's time they don't get favourised by search engines. Many of the diamonds or even BDs, really have average or even below average content that still sells great, because their files didn't loose the momentum they've picked up in 2004/05, when just about anything sold. And that's just wrong with so much great, awesome and original content being uploaded and buried because of those, photographically speaking, lousy files, that wouldn't get more than a sale or 2 today, most of them wouldn't sell at all, instead of having flames. Just the other day I came across total sale number of a diamond that still sells like crazy, but when I checked the port I almost threw up.


I agree 100%, although Im a Diamond contributor at IS,  I have to say, most buyers of micro seem to think that quantity means quality. They are staring themselves blind at massive ports, thinking its equal to quality and that exclusivity is something you earn!

To become exclusive at IS, simply means you need 500 downloads of just about anything, then buyers will see this crown appearing. Exclusivity at IS, has got nothing to do at all with top-notch images or that you have to earn your position. Its open to anybody, amateurs alike.

If you really had to earn by merit, exclusivity. Good God, 75% of all micro shots would be rejected and especially in the amateur leagues of IS. I am sure! buyers dont understand that images are accepted, as long as images are technically sound. Creativity, conceptuals, etc, is NOT criterias for acceptance.

Buyers want to see tough and rigorous editing? go visit SS, as an example.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 05:30 by lagereek »

« Reply #586 on: November 05, 2011, 05:30 »
0
250!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #587 on: November 05, 2011, 05:46 »
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.
Fixed the spelling, I searched using the correct spelling though so that doesn't change.

Well, searching for German cockroach (no quotes) on SS brought up a couple of dozen.

My point (which I thought was obvious) was that Sean said you can use the iStock search with amazing effectiveness that other searches don't match .... but that is only true if you choose terms that they happen to have included in the CV - and most of the things in the world aren't in it, especially if you get very specific.

There must be quite a lot of buyers down the years who have been frustrated by being unable to find any results for something or other, even if there are files for it, because it is disallowed by the CV. Forcing people to go to rival agencies because you value your theory about searching more than making sales is just dumb, but that's where iStock has been for years.
In this case, it's NOT the CV which is at fault [1], it's just that very few iStockers have chosen to upload cockroach photos, for whatever reason. In SS, it looks as though two people have uploaded series of the species.
Personally, I've found that uploading unusual species [2] to iStock isn't worth it - you only get a few if any sales. I'm sure the serious togs are still uploading to traditional wildlife outlets, where the buyers are. For me, it's better to use Alamy, and they better understand natural lighting - iStock's lighting requirements mean that there are many photos on iStock which are in light that they'd never be in in the wild, even shade loving species (automatic 'flat light' rejection) which would be anathema to a knowlegeable potential buyer, who also would be unlikely to use any of SS's isolated or 'running in a curve' pics. PS, why are there 5 near-identical photos of that?
[1] However, there is the issue that Americans call cockroaches 'roaches', and a roach is one of several species of fish, which isn't in the CV, so I have SM'd Ducksandwich and in the fulness of time, that will be DAd.
[2] It seems that German Cockroaches are NOT unusual. I'm happy to say that cockroaches are not something I've ever had to become knowledgeable about.  ;D
BTW - I'm hearing from independent contributors that unusual nature species photographed in the wild are currently getting whatever the SS rejection is for 'low commercial value'.
Plus there must be some other meaning of roach, as I'm seeing pretzels searching SS on 'cockroach' which appear to have no cockroaches in them.

OK, so I tried another search. It is true that the CV is only as good as the togs who are using it. So 'duck' is one of my bete noirs at iStock as people don't seem to know what is and is not a duck, and tag their rubber ducks,cooked or raw duck as food, domestic ducks, grebes, herons, swans, flamingoes and divers/loons as 'duck (freshwater birds)'.
So I tried Shutterstick with only duck and got a page almost full of rubber ducks. I tried duck NOT poultry NOT rubber and got 0 results, then duck - poultry - rubber and got a page almost full of illos of rubber ducks. So I tried duck wild and got the unfortunate mix (sorted by 'new') you'd get on iStock: lots of geese, some grebes and totally unbelievably six pics of a European Woodcock, correctly identified but also with the keyword 'duck'. Not even close.
So both systems fail on user ignorance and/or deliberate spamming.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 06:01 by ShadySue »

« Reply #588 on: November 05, 2011, 06:23 »
0
It still seems to me that the biggest problem with the search is that they're trying to push the content they want to sell, rather than the content that people want to buy. As far as I know this never works long term with anything.
The only thing is of course that we don't know what is really happening to sales. We can only see a part of the story, we don't see any of the "new exclusive" Agency suppliers results for instance. It might be that the search they have now is giving them the best return.

« Reply #589 on: November 05, 2011, 07:54 »
0
Re German Cockroach

Thanks to all for pointing out that is the US these are called roaches - so I've amended my keywords ;)

« Reply #590 on: November 05, 2011, 08:08 »
0
But it seems sales rose for majority of the contributors.

I would suggest that sales rose for the majority of silver and below canisters which would make the bulk of most members but not necessarily the bulk of all images, hence why the poll on the right has raised and hence why the majority of gold, diamond and above are reporting terrible sales in the IS October thread. If it is this scenario, then the poll on the right will certainly drop down within the next couple of months as this can't be sustainable.

I don't know why all of you ppl are constantly giving so much significance to top contributors.


I was not giving any significance to anybody, I was just stating my observation...

lagereek

« Reply #591 on: November 05, 2011, 10:04 »
0
It still seems to me that the biggest problem with the search is that they're trying to push the content they want to sell, rather than the content that people want to buy. As far as I know this never works long term with anything.
The only thing is of course that we don't know what is really happening to sales. We can only see a part of the story, we don't see any of the "new exclusive" Agency suppliers results for instance. It might be that the search they have now is giving them the best return.

Hi Dave!

Well according to Lobo, this new best match, etc, is supposed to be exactly what buyers want and are looking for? so, according to that, if thats what they want to sell? they are taking the buyers for idiots, mind, after listening to many buyers in the IS forum, seems a pretty dismal and diletantic bunch anyway. They probably got their budget from a flee-market vendor.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2011, 10:10 by lagereek »

« Reply #592 on: November 05, 2011, 10:41 »
0

I agree 100%, although Im a Diamond contributor at IS,  I have to say, most buyers of micro seem to think that quantity means quality. They are staring themselves blind at massive ports, thinking its equal to quality and that exclusivity is something you earn!

To become exclusive at IS, simply means you need 500 downloads of just about anything, then buyers will see this crown appearing. Exclusivity at IS, has got nothing to do at all with top-notch images or that you have to earn your position. Its open to anybody, amateurs alike.

If you really had to earn by merit, exclusivity. Good God, 75% of all micro shots would be rejected and especially in the amateur leagues of IS. I am sure! buyers dont understand that images are accepted, as long as images are technically sound. Creativity, conceptuals, etc, is NOT criterias for acceptance.

Buyers want to see tough and rigorous editing? go visit SS, as an example.

Right, sorry, but even "the top microstock sales person in the world, heck maybe even universe" has stated istock has the hardest submission standards.  Which makes sense to someone who has submitted to them.  It seems like you are always bringing up the term "micro" which is weird.  I guess you are macro?  It seems as though you should be mopping up the floor with the lightweights at istock since your portfolio is jammed pack with "creativity, conceptuals, etc."   It appears there are 450 amateurs above you in sales.   Do you not want more money?  Do you not like cash?  Why do you even bother dipping below the clouds to spend time with the lowly "micros" as you always point out?

lagereek

« Reply #593 on: November 05, 2011, 11:48 »
0

I agree 100%, although Im a Diamond contributor at IS,  I have to say, most buyers of micro seem to think that quantity means quality. They are staring themselves blind at massive ports, thinking its equal to quality and that exclusivity is something you earn!

To become exclusive at IS, simply means you need 500 downloads of just about anything, then buyers will see this crown appearing. Exclusivity at IS, has got nothing to do at all with top-notch images or that you have to earn your position. Its open to anybody, amateurs alike.

If you really had to earn by merit, exclusivity. Good God, 75% of all micro shots would be rejected and especially in the amateur leagues of IS. I am sure! buyers dont understand that images are accepted, as long as images are technically sound. Creativity, conceptuals, etc, is NOT criterias for acceptance.

Buyers want to see tough and rigorous editing? go visit SS, as an example.

Right, sorry, but even "the top microstock sales person in the world, heck maybe even universe" has stated istock has the hardest submission standards.  Which makes sense to someone who has submitted to them.  It seems like you are always bringing up the term "micro" which is weird.  I guess you are macro?  It seems as though you should be mopping up the floor with the lightweights at istock since your portfolio is jammed pack with "creativity, conceptuals, etc."   It appears there are 450 amateurs above you in sales.   Do you not want more money?  Do you not like cash?  Why do you even bother dipping below the clouds to spend time with the lowly "micros" as you always point out?

Are you blind?  I said above Im an IS Diamond, so how in . can that be Macro?,  its micro, right? yes according to the Chart Im within their top 600 contributors BUT! independant. Hurts, doesnt it?
You are talking rubbish, I can hear it, even smell it. You are no more buyer then I am the man in the moon,  well maybe youve bought a few over the years, thats it. Youre postings are naive, unintelligent and corny, to say the least, you dont even bother to get youre facts right regarding Micro/Macro.
I strongly suggest you go elswhere with youre trolling.

Youre in the wrong forum. feel free to visit the DPR. :D :D :D

« Reply #594 on: November 05, 2011, 12:19 »
0
It still seems to me that the biggest problem with the search is that they're trying to push the content they want to sell, rather than the content that people want to buy. As far as I know this never works long term with anything.
The only thing is of course that we don't know what is really happening to sales. We can only see a part of the story, we don't see any of the "new exclusive" Agency suppliers results for instance. It might be that the search they have now is giving them the best return.

Hi Dave!

Well according to Lobo, this new best match, etc, is supposed to be exactly what buyers want and are looking for? so, according to that, if thats what they want to sell? they are taking the buyers for idiots, mind, after listening to many buyers in the IS forum, seems a pretty dismal and diletantic bunch anyway. They probably got their budget from a flee-market vendor.

Hi Chris
I always assumed that comment had an element of the political in it. "We know what the people want and that is what we are giving them (whether they want it or not)" sort of thing. :)

« Reply #595 on: November 06, 2011, 05:05 »
0
...Right, sorry, but even "the top microstock sales person in the world, heck maybe even universe" has stated istock has the hardest submission standards.  Which makes sense to someone who has submitted to them...
That might of been true a few years ago.  Now, I find it much harder to get images accepted with SS and DT than istock.  The initial submission for SS seems much harder than istock, there's lots of people struggling to get in to SS now.  SS still has more images because they have no upload limits, pay higher commissions and have a much easier upload.  Lots of people don't bother with istock now but that's not because they have hard submission standards.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #596 on: November 06, 2011, 05:32 »
0
Lots of people don't bother with istock now ...
That certainly seems to be the case. I just happened to look at istockcharts last night and found that my meagre nuber of uploads in October (6) was very much on the high side for contributors in the pages around me there.
Sean should be pleased.  :D

« Reply #597 on: November 06, 2011, 06:20 »
0
Quote
I just happened to look at istockcharts last night and found that my meagre nuber of uploads in October (6) was very much on the high side for contributors in the pages around me there.

I wouldn't take too much notice of those charts, I've uploaded about 16 images in the last 30 days, it's got me down as zero uploads.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #598 on: November 06, 2011, 06:54 »
0
Quote
I just happened to look at istockcharts last night and found that my meagre nuber of uploads in October (6) was very much on the high side for contributors in the pages around me there.

I wouldn't take too much notice of those charts, I've uploaded about 16 images in the last 30 days, it's got me down as zero uploads.
Fair enough. Plus I just realised that the default sort has changed since last I looked some months back. It used to be that the default was firstly broadbanded by downloads, e.g. 5000+ or whatever, and within that, alphabetically by user name, but now it's broadbanded by downloads, then by uploads in the past 30 days (that it has registered). So not surprising that those around me have low uls for the month, as I have.

« Reply #599 on: November 06, 2011, 10:33 »
0
...Right, sorry, but even "the top microstock sales person in the world, heck maybe even universe" has stated istock has the hardest submission standards.  Which makes sense to someone who has submitted to them...
That might of been true a few years ago.  Now, I find it much harder to get images accepted with SS and DT than istock.  The initial submission for SS seems much harder than istock, there's lots of people struggling to get in to SS now.  SS still has more images because they have no upload limits, pay higher commissions and have a much easier upload.  Lots of people don't bother with istock now but that's not because they have hard submission standards.


Oh, you have to love the independent group think on here.  SS pays higher commissions?  Did you read yuri's post "Shutterstock has gone up it seems but has the same low "per-item" commission".  I not happy with they way IS is going, but I have not told myself that I would be better off as an independent over the last 5 years because no one was.  In 2005 Istock payed higher commissions per sale, payed double commission rates to exclusives, and held a market share above 70%.  Even with the mathematical slap in the face, with the guarantee of losing tons of money, some people still went independent.  Factor in the company that was offering this advantage was a great, fair, and growing Canadian start up that was slaying the "evil" Getty and its even more puzzling. 


 

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
5453 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
13496 Views
Last post July 25, 2017, 01:34
by zorandim

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors