pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales have tanked big time  (Read 180500 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #600 on: November 06, 2011, 11:02 »
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.  
SS don't just sell subs.  I made more than my earnings from istock with non-subs sales last month, at much better commission rates.  I didn't start until 2006 and never really felt there was an option to go exclusive without losing a lot of money.  Getty had already purchased istock.  Some people do well with istock, I have nothing against exclusives but there's a lot of us that would of made a huge mistake taking that option.

There's a lot of non-exclusive bias on this forum but there are also exclusives that keep saying things that are completely incorrect.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2011, 11:05 by sharpshot »


« Reply #601 on: November 06, 2011, 12:42 »
0
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. 

I would have agreed with this a month ago, but now that they have forced independents onto Thinkstock and photos.com, I doubt that they can maintain that higher RPD. Those subs will have to be factored in and will really bring down that average.

« Reply #602 on: November 06, 2011, 16:18 »
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.  

Pro@, you are under a mathematical misconception. The 70:30 split (if correct, which it could well be) says nothing whatsoever about whether or not being independent would make more money or not. Say iStock had 10,000 photographers and 70% of the market and SS had 10 photographers and 30% of the market - then SS photographers would get 3% of the total industry spend and iS photographers would get 0.007%, making the independent 4,000 times better off.

You also ignore the fact that most serious independents were also at iSTock, so they got their slice of the 70%, anyway. OK, iStock trimmed the slice back to as little as half of what an exclusive would get, but even so the combined income of all other sites only had to match what a diamond inde was getting at iStock for everything to balance, and on average indes were reporting just under half their income came from istock.

The things that made it impossible for us to know whether we were losing out or not by remaining independent were the higher upload limits, the faster inspection and therefore better search engine position, suspicions that inspection standards were laxer for exclusives than for independents (nobody knows if that was true or not) and, more recently, the introduction of special perks such as higher prices for ordinary files and special collections, like Vetta.

It is entirely possible that you were better off being exclusive, but it is certainly not the open and shut case you think it is.

For many of us, independence was a way of guarding against disasters, such as loss of market position by iStock or simply upsetting someone and getting booted off (which has happened to people) thereby losing everything. If we lost money by steering clear of dependence on iS then that was the price of insurance.

You might also consider that the perks of exclusivity are there precisely because of the competition IS faced from emerging agencies. Dreamstime and Canstock started in June 2004 and SS in October 2004. It wasn't until December that iSTock announced that it would pay extra to people who didn't supply its rivals. So the extra benefits for exclusives only exist due to the hard work of independents who keep rival sites afloat. You should think fondly of us, we give you your extra percentage.

PS: In Jan 2005, I was silver level and 80% of my earnings came from IS and 20% from the new start-ups. I could have got a 25% increase with exclusivity, but that would just have brought things back level. In subsequent years, the growth in the percentage of income from other agencies at least kept pace with my moves up the can levels. The incentive was never pitched at a high enough level to be decisive.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2011, 16:26 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #603 on: November 06, 2011, 16:28 »
0
For many of us, independence was a way of guarding against disasters, such as loss of market position by iStock or simply upsetting someone and getting booted off (which has happened to people) thereby losing everything. If we lost money by steering clear of dependence on iS then that was the price of insurance.

You might also consider that the perks of exclusivity are there precisely because of the competition IS faced from emerging agencies. Dreamstime and Canstock started in June 2004 and SS in October 2004. It wasn't until December that iSTock announced that it would pay extra to people who didn't supply its rivals. So the extra benefits for exclusives only exist due to the hard work of independents who keep rival sites afloat. You should think fondly of us, we give you your extra percentage.

This is possibly my all time favourite quote on here. So I just had to quote it and I've got nothing else to say. :D

« Reply #604 on: November 06, 2011, 16:33 »
0
The incentive was never pitched at a high enough level to be decisive.

That's the truth __ and thank goodness for that. Imagine where we might be if Istock had total control of the market.

« Reply #605 on: November 06, 2011, 17:24 »
0
Baldricks, that was some of the most sensible opinion I've read, regarding the exclusive vs independent argument. Well stated!

helix7

« Reply #606 on: November 06, 2011, 19:41 »
0
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.

My earnings at SS so far this month are more than my earnings at istock will be for the entire month. I don't care what my RPD is at SS (and it's probably more than you think). All that matters is the totals at the end of the month, and in that category, istock doesn't even come close to SS.

« Reply #607 on: November 06, 2011, 20:16 »
0
Baldricks, that was some of the most sensible opinion I've read, regarding the exclusive vs independent argument. Well stated!

I agree....Baldricks...you just made this forum that much more interesting to read...thank you for your keen observation and insight!!

lagereek

« Reply #608 on: November 07, 2011, 01:05 »
0
Great post Baldricks!  only this  so called buyer,  pro@stockphotos?  I am not sure he is a serious buyer at all, he doesnt reason as one at all. We all know that serious buyers dont care where they buy or whose picture they buy, as long as they can satisfy their clients and thats ofcourse the professional way.
For all we kniow this could be a plant, a pseudo or a troll.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2011, 01:07 by lagereek »

« Reply #609 on: November 07, 2011, 01:48 »
0
Absolutely right, Baldrick. Over the past year I've chewed wryly over every one of the points you make. Unfortunately, when I started out in 2006 I rose rapidly through the iStock canisters, giving me a bigger early incentive, and I was rejected by Shutterstock at my first attempt. At this stage the golden handcuffs of exclusivity are pretty tight. I'm sure I've done at least as well as being independent, probably considerably better, but I'd certainly feel more comfortable if I'd paid that insurance premium.

RacePhoto

« Reply #610 on: November 07, 2011, 09:33 »
0
The incentive was never pitched at a high enough level to be decisive.

That's the truth __ and thank goodness for that. Imagine where we might be if Istock had total control of the market.

Great post and coverage I'd like to add two more small details.

TAC as some call it. IS has added The Agency Collections, with the most notable EdStock currently at 75600 files! That's direct competition from inside the agency?

Self review. Whether Exclusives get better placement or easier reviews, seems to be unknown, but some people have self review as Exclusives. That has got to hurt.

Why would I want to be an exclusive at an agency that was putting in their own competing files and allowing special people a back door to distribution, when I could be free to sell anywhere I wanted.

Even thought I'm not a big part of Micro like some people, the independent factor just has a nice taste of freedom, freedom from the corporate giant and Big Brother, which right there, is enough to say, no thank you.

The Exclusives are working the system and doing well, I wish them the best, but I think at this point, new people looking at the option will not be dropping every other agency to put all their eggs in one basket. Those days have passed.

Yes PRO, SS pays the higher commissions, in dollars (or whatever people get paid in) and bottom line. I can't spend percentages on food, gas for the car or equipment I can only spend money. :D

IS is leaving Microstock. All the small contributors and crowd-sourcing is going to ThinkStock. Exclusives and pro photo factory collections, are going to IS under assorted price points and names.

That's my interpretation of why sales have migrated from IS over to ThinkStock for many people with MicroStock portfolios.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2011, 09:47 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #611 on: November 07, 2011, 10:06 »
0


Pro@, you are under a mathematical misconception. The 70:30 split (if correct, which it could well be) says nothing whatsoever about whether or not being independent would make more money or not. Say iStock had 10,000 photographers and 70% of the market and SS had 10 photographers and 30% of the market - then SS photographers would get 3% of the total industry spend and iS photographers would get 0.007%, making the independent 4,000 times better off.

You also ignore the fact that most serious independents were also at iSTock, so they got their slice of the 70%, anyway. OK, iStock trimmed the slice back to as little as half of what an exclusive would get, but even so the combined income of all other sites only had to match what a diamond inde was getting at iStock for everything to balance, and on average indes were reporting just under half their income came from istock.

The things that made it impossible for us to know whether we were losing out or not by remaining independent were the higher upload limits, the faster inspection and therefore better search engine position, suspicions that inspection standards were laxer for exclusives than for independents (nobody knows if that was true or not) and, more recently, the introduction of special perks such as higher prices for ordinary files and special collections, like Vetta.

It is entirely possible that you were better off being exclusive, but it is certainly not the open and shut case you think it is.

For many of us, independence was a way of guarding against disasters, such as loss of market position by iStock or simply upsetting someone and getting booted off (which has happened to people) thereby losing everything. If we lost money by steering clear of dependence on iS then that was the price of insurance.

You might also consider that the perks of exclusivity are there precisely because of the competition IS faced from emerging agencies. Dreamstime and Canstock started in June 2004 and SS in October 2004. It wasn't until December that iSTock announced that it would pay extra to people who didn't supply its rivals. So the extra benefits for exclusives only exist due to the hard work of independents who keep rival sites afloat. You should think fondly of us, we give you your extra percentage.

PS: In Jan 2005, I was silver level and 80% of my earnings came from IS and 20% from the new start-ups. I could have got a 25% increase with exclusivity, but that would just have brought things back level. In subsequent years, the growth in the percentage of income from other agencies at least kept pace with my moves up the can levels. The incentive was never pitched at a high enough level to be decisive.

I appreciate your attempt to honestly answer my question without the "name calling" another poster pursued in response.  I am fine with the theory of your answer, however, I have not seen your numbers play out in the earnings stated by independents knowing what comparable exclusives have earned with the same downloads.  If your rise on the other stock sites is comparable to your rise on istock, your portfolio would be stronger with the advantages of being exclusive.  Tell me the top Veta selling photo could make up that income on other sites.  The top independents are losing sales at istock without a large enough growth on the other sites to make up the difference.  The are too many compounding multiples at istock.  Sure some of the top exclusives have seen drops but not all.  While the top independent has felt slowing growth.   It still comes down to protecting your brand.  Whether you a stock site or cola or apple, you can't sell your product at a price based model and see growth in the future.

« Reply #612 on: November 07, 2011, 11:19 »
0
Why do you even bother dipping below the clouds to spend time with the lowly "micros" as you always point out?

spot on  ;D

lagereek

« Reply #613 on: November 07, 2011, 11:25 »
0


Pro@, you are under a mathematical misconception. The 70:30 split (if correct, which it could well be) says nothing whatsoever about whether or not being independent would make more money or not. Say iStock had 10,000 photographers and 70% of the market and SS had 10 photographers and 30% of the market - then SS photographers would get 3% of the total industry spend and iS photographers would get 0.007%, making the independent 4,000 times better off.

You also ignore the fact that most serious independents were also at iSTock, so they got their slice of the 70%, anyway. OK, iStock trimmed the slice back to as little as half of what an exclusive would get, but even so the combined income of all other sites only had to match what a diamond inde was getting at iStock for everything to balance, and on average indes were reporting just under half their income came from istock.

The things that made it impossible for us to know whether we were losing out or not by remaining independent were the higher upload limits, the faster inspection and therefore better search engine position, suspicions that inspection standards were laxer for exclusives than for independents (nobody knows if that was true or not) and, more recently, the introduction of special perks such as higher prices for ordinary files and special collections, like Vetta.

It is entirely possible that you were better off being exclusive, but it is certainly not the open and shut case you think it is.

For many of us, independence was a way of guarding against disasters, such as loss of market position by iStock or simply upsetting someone and getting booted off (which has happened to people) thereby losing everything. If we lost money by steering clear of dependence on iS then that was the price of insurance.

You might also consider that the perks of exclusivity are there precisely because of the competition IS faced from emerging agencies. Dreamstime and Canstock started in June 2004 and SS in October 2004. It wasn't until December that iSTock announced that it would pay extra to people who didn't supply its rivals. So the extra benefits for exclusives only exist due to the hard work of independents who keep rival sites afloat. You should think fondly of us, we give you your extra percentage.

PS: In Jan 2005, I was silver level and 80% of my earnings came from IS and 20% from the new start-ups. I could have got a 25% increase with exclusivity, but that would just have brought things back level. In subsequent years, the growth in the percentage of income from other agencies at least kept pace with my moves up the can levels. The incentive was never pitched at a high enough level to be decisive.

I appreciate your attempt to honestly answer my question without the "name calling" another poster pursued in response.  I am fine with the theory of your answer, however, I have not seen your numbers play out in the earnings stated by independents knowing what comparable exclusives have earned with the same downloads.  If your rise on the other stock sites is comparable to your rise on istock, your portfolio would be stronger with the advantages of being exclusive.  Tell me the top Veta selling photo could make up that income on other sites.  The top independents are losing sales at istock without a large enough growth on the other sites to make up the difference.  The are too many compounding multiples at istock.  Sure some of the top exclusives have seen drops but not all.  While the top independent has felt slowing growth.   It still comes down to protecting your brand.  Whether you a stock site or cola or apple, you can't sell your product at a price based model and see growth in the future.

Why do you come here pretending you are a buyer?  I know who you are! lets leave it like that and kindly move on, trolling at another forum.  Thanks.

« Reply #614 on: November 07, 2011, 12:05 »
0
If your rise on the other stock sites is comparable to your rise on istock, your portfolio would be stronger with the advantages of being exclusive.  Tell me the top Veta selling photo could make up that income on other sites.  The top independents are losing sales at istock without a large enough growth on the other sites to make up the difference.  The are too many compounding multiples at istock. 

There are not enough data to prove or disprove that point. Personally, I have sold almost three times as many licenses on other sites as I have at iStock. Vetta, higher exclusive prices and the exclusive+ programme are all recent developments. I gather that access to Vetta is not equal for all. Many say that the exclusive-+ pricing lost them more sales than it was worth.

Vetta seems designed for the more "arty" sort of file that some artists are good at and others don't produce at all, so different individuals would have different results from it. It could be off limits for one exclusive artist and a gold mine for another.

The decline in sales reported by senior exclusives seems to be a far more general phenomenon than you suggest, so I think any established independent would have to have lost his marbles to be contemplating exclusivity right now. If iStock can put its ship in order over the coming months that might change (though the warning from recent history will always be there). As it is, buying into iStock right now makes about as much sense as sinking your life savings into Greek government bonds.

helix7

« Reply #615 on: November 07, 2011, 12:06 »
0
...If your rise on the other stock sites is comparable to your rise on istock, your portfolio would be stronger with the advantages of being exclusive.  Tell me the top Veta selling photo could make up that income on other sites.  The top independents are losing sales at istock without a large enough growth on the other sites to make up the difference...

You are absolutely right. Please stay exclusive at istock and encourage all other exclusives to remain so as well.

:)

grp_photo

« Reply #616 on: November 07, 2011, 12:46 »
0
As it is, buying into iStock right now makes about as much sense as sinking your life savings into Greek government bonds.
LOL  :D

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #617 on: November 07, 2011, 14:12 »
0
Absolutely right, Baldrick. Over the past year I've chewed wryly over every one of the points you make. Unfortunately, when I started out in 2006 I rose rapidly through the iStock canisters, giving me a bigger early incentive, and I was rejected by Shutterstock at my first attempt. At this stage the golden handcuffs of exclusivity are pretty tight. I'm sure I've done at least as well as being independent, probably considerably better, but I'd certainly feel more comfortable if I'd paid that insurance premium.

I think a lot of exclusives feel this way. I like the simplicity of working with one agency, and I'm generally proud of being an iStock exclusive. but, the last two years have left me feeling frustration and significant concern about the direction things are going. I'm dependent on the income now and I don't believe it's better to be independent. I still think iStock are the industry leaders in many respects. That's proving to be both good and bad for contributors. I have often commented that I think contributors who started early on have it even worse. You would have enjoyed rapid growth and success in the early years, plateaus and then drops in download numbers as the collection has grown exponentially, not to mention the tides of change that keep threatening to drown suppliers.

Having invested everything in a company that communicates less and less with us, and which heavily prioritizes its interests over ours is increasingly unsettling.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2011, 14:14 by SNP »

« Reply #618 on: November 07, 2011, 14:19 »
0
I don't know why someone would feel proud of being an iStock exclusive. After all, all it means there is that you have licensed more than 500 photos there and decided to stick with the one agency. Surely pride is for an achievement - like licensing a large number of photos or having your work used in ways that show it is highly regarded - not for signing a business lock-in deal.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2011, 14:25 by BaldricksTrousers »

lagereek

« Reply #619 on: November 07, 2011, 14:38 »
0
I don't know why someone would feel proud of being an iStock exclusive. After all, all it means there is that you have licensed more than 500 photos there and decided to stick with the one agency. Surely pride is for an achievement - like licensing a large number of photos or having your work used in ways that show it is highly regarded - not for signing a business lock-in deal.

Youre right!  its pathetic, really. Yes, I can understand pride, if you earned it by merit. Earning it by licensing 500 photos and then make such a song and dance over it. Talk about deprived people.

« Reply #620 on: November 07, 2011, 14:39 »
0
Is Istock having technical issues today? The sales is terrible.

grp_photo

« Reply #621 on: November 07, 2011, 14:44 »
0
I still think iStock are the industry leaders in many respects.
I think this too. But they are in a decline that's for sure and I don't think the declining trend will stop anyway soon, they have also always been the leader in arrogance.

grp_photo

« Reply #622 on: November 07, 2011, 14:46 »
0
I don't know why someone would feel proud of being an iStock exclusive. After all, all it means there is that you have licensed more than 500 photos there and decided to stick with the one agency. Surely pride is for an achievement - like licensing a large number of photos or having your work used in ways that show it is highly regarded - not for signing a business lock-in deal.
spot on!

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #623 on: November 07, 2011, 14:47 »
0
I'm proud of the work I've done there, the way I've been supported by colleagues and admins, and the educational opportunities there for the taking that I continue to take advantage of. I'm proud of being associated with iStock as the agency they have been at their core (as much as I realize that the core is getting smaller, more and more impotent as the years go on). I realize saying that out loud will be met with cynicism here, but it's how I feel. I don't agree with a lot of the decisions they've made, and I don't agree with every direction they're going in of late. But yeah, I'm proud of being a part of iStock.

grp_photo

« Reply #624 on: November 07, 2011, 14:54 »
0
I realize actually saying that out loud will be met with cynicism here
Well no cynicism from me but you don't need an agency to be proud of your work etc. after all an agency is just an agency and it's obvious that some agencies take advantages of the lack of self-confidence from some of their contributors.


 

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
5456 Views
Last post March 16, 2016, 06:25
by mirkic
17 Replies
5530 Views
Last post May 04, 2017, 16:38
by heywoody
28 Replies
13505 Views
Last post July 25, 2017, 01:34
by zorandim

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors