pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales have tanked big time  (Read 180470 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

wut

« Reply #650 on: November 08, 2011, 12:45 »
0

Oh, you have to love the independent group think on here.  SS pays higher commissions?  ...

How about a bit of data from an independent. Yesterday I made more than twice the money on SS that I did on iStock. No ELs at either site. The on demand and singles sales really bring the SS returns per download up, not to mention that if you get a lot of those wretched discounted credits (where the buyer paid around 50 cents) the returns at iStock really look weak.

This isn't group think. This is just the way it is right now.

True!  and here, 3 times more then IS, and with some on-demand-sales.  No comparison.


Almost x400 in my case, 1 sub Xs DL (10c) vs 15 subs, 1 OD and 1 EL at SS today.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2011, 13:33 by wut »


SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #651 on: November 08, 2011, 13:20 »
0
if things are so great as an independent, why all the effort to convince exclusives that we're willfully walking the plank? relative to past years, downloads are either down for many of the longest contributing artists, or they've stopped growing as they had. But income and dls are up for some of us middle of the road contributors who sell a moderate volume, upload diverse content regularly.  sales aren't down for everyone, quite the contrary. I'm on track to have a record month again for downloads and income and I know a number of diamonds who are better performers than me, whose sales have also really picked up over the last two months.

it's an incorrect assumption that dls should increase at a regular rate with portfolio growth. more important is the rate of growth of the entire collection:rate of growth in your portfolio. new content being uploaded has to be competitive. there's a lot of good imagery in a collection of 10M. Some longtime contributors have rested on their laurels uploading very little new content and riding sales on bestsellers for too long. or compete with themselves by uploading the same concepts and scenes year after year with different models.

« Reply #652 on: November 08, 2011, 13:49 »
0
if things are so great as an independent, why all the effort to convince exclusives that we're willfully walking the plank? relative to past years, downloads are either down for many of the longest contributing artists, or they've stopped growing as they had. But income and dls are up for some of us middle of the road contributors who sell a moderate volume, upload diverse content regularly.  sales aren't down for everyone, quite the contrary. I'm on track to have a record month again for downloads and income and I know a number of diamonds who are better performers than me, whose sales have also really picked up over the last two months.

it's an incorrect assumption that dls should increase at a regular rate with portfolio growth. more important is the rate of growth of the entire collection:rate of growth in your portfolio. new content being uploaded has to be competitive. there's a lot of good imagery in a collection of 10M. Some longtime contributors have rested on their laurels uploading very little new content and riding sales on bestsellers for too long. or compete with themselves by uploading the same concepts and scenes year after year with different models.

To be honest I'm not surprised that your sales are increasing. Not only are you uploading regularly but the quality of your work has been transformed beyond recognition over the last couple of years. You've become a completely different stock photographer. Some of your latest stuff is truly excellent and appropriately benefits from TAC/Vetta rates. I'm sure you would be far better off remaining exclusive for the foreseeable future.

« Reply #653 on: November 08, 2011, 14:05 »
0
if things are so great as an independent, why all the effort to convince exclusives that we're willfully walking the plank? ...

No one makes any initial effort to convince exclusives of anything, certainly not here. What happens when an exclusive starts making claims about how much better off independents would be as exclusives, is those with some data comment on or refute those claims.

And as far as sales growth goes, you have a relatively very large portfolio - bigger than lisafx or gostwyk and triple the size of mine. The one thing you won't/can't know is how much better that might be doing (a) elsewhere or (b) at iStock if they hadn't taken a dump on contributors and buyers.

The decision to stick with iStock isn't of any concern to anyone other than you. But expect pushback when exclusives make inaccurate comments about the outside world.

« Reply #654 on: November 08, 2011, 14:40 »
0
Comparing sales at differents sites with different porfolios sizes (for independents, IS almost always the smaller because of upload limits) makes little sense. For me, the only figure that makes sense is Return Per Upload (Return for time and money invested would make sense too, but that's not easy to calculate). Now and then, some independents have published here these RPU figures for their portfolios, and to be true I've never seen none highest than mine's as an IS average exclusive  --not a super-star, not even near-- at 40%. Maybe they exist, it's possible, but I haven't seen them.

« Reply #655 on: November 08, 2011, 14:46 »
0
Comparing sales at differents sites with different porfolios sizes (for independents, IS almost always the smaller because of upload limits) makes little sense. For me, the only figure that makes sense is Return Per Upload (Return for time and money invested would make sense too, but that's not easy to calculate). Now and then, some independents have published here these RPU figures for their portfolios, and to be true I've never seen none highest than mine's as an IS average exclusive  --not a super-star, not even near-- at 40%. Maybe they exist, it's possible, but I haven't seen them.

if you are at 40% you are a VERY high ranking exlusive. that mark isn't reached by many.
in addition the term is usually referred as RPI and that indeed is the most important parameter to compare.

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #656 on: November 08, 2011, 15:18 »
0
if things are so great as an independent, why all the effort to convince exclusives that we're willfully walking the plank? ...

No one makes any initial effort to convince exclusives of anything, certainly not here. What happens when an exclusive starts making claims about how much better off independents would be as exclusives, is those with some data comment on or refute those claims.

And as far as sales growth goes, you have a relatively very large portfolio - bigger than lisafx or gostwyk and triple the size of mine. The one thing you won't/can't know is how much better that might be doing (a) elsewhere or (b) at iStock if they hadn't taken a dump on contributors and buyers.

The decision to stick with iStock isn't of any concern to anyone other than you. But expect pushback when exclusives make inaccurate comments about the outside world.

I'm not commenting on the outside world JoAnn. I haven't been independent, and I agree that there's no way to know--other than comparing how some other indies are doing with similar images and port size--how I would be doing as an independent. but there's little incentive to take the risk right now. I'm certainly not trying to convince anyone to become exclusive. A: why invite more competition, B: I know what works for me may not work for someone else. that is the nature of this business. but what is frequently commented here (despite your claim that it isn't), is that it's is virtually impossible to be doing well on iStock. and if you think you're doing well, you're in denial because they are nothing more than greedy corporate a55hats perpetually screwing us. like most things, fact exists somewhere in the middle.

@gostwyck: I think that is the nicest thing you've ever said to me. I'm not sure you meant it to be, maybe I'm missing some sarcasm. but thanks nonetheless.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2011, 15:20 by SNP »

« Reply #657 on: November 08, 2011, 16:08 »
0
in addition the term is usually referred as RPI and that indeed is the most important parameter to compare.

Maybe for you, but not for me.

I generally have two kinds of shoots.  First are model shoots, where the expense is high, the sales per image are low, and I can get a lot of images accepted due to changes of outfit and expression.  I can get a hundred photos from a single session with a single model, and although my RPI/RPU will be low, my return on the shoot is potentially very high.

The second type of shoot is everything else: scenics, isolated objects, road signs, whatever.  My expense for the shoot may be low, but the number of images I generate is equally low.  RPI for these images will likely be higher than my model images when taken individually, but lower when compared to the model images taken in aggregate.

My RPI has been dropping like a rock since I started shooting models in 2008.  On the other hand, my revenue from stock has been increasing nicely.  My portfolio size has grown faster than revenue, which only matters if I consider a (to me) false measure like RPI.  Fortunately, I don't.

« Reply #658 on: November 08, 2011, 16:50 »
0


@gostwyck: I think that is the nicest thing you've ever said to me. I'm not sure you meant it to be, maybe I'm missing some sarcasm. but thanks nonetheless.

Gostwyck has an unblemished record of saying exactly what he thinks, so I would take that as his professional assessment of your progress.

As for trying to win over people - I don't think that is what is going on here. It is more a mixture of self-justification and exchange of information. In a polarised situation, both sides always have a set of reasons as to why they are right.

« Reply #659 on: November 08, 2011, 17:01 »
0
I generally have two kinds of shoots.  First are model shoots, where the expense is high, the sales per image are low, and I can get a lot of images accepted due to changes of outfit and expression.  I can get a hundred photos from a single session with a single model, and although my RPI/RPU will be low, my return on the shoot is potentially very high.

The second type of shoot is everything else: scenics, isolated objects, road signs, whatever.  My expense for the shoot may be low, but the number of images I generate is equally low.  RPI for these images will likely be higher than my model images when taken individually, but lower when compared to the model images taken in aggregate.

My RPI has been dropping like a rock since I started shooting models in 2008.  On the other hand, my revenue from stock has been increasing nicely.  My portfolio size has grown faster than revenue, which only matters if I consider a (to me) false measure like RPI.  Fortunately, I don't.

Seems like you have been using RPI to analyze your sales, haven't you? :D

« Reply #660 on: November 08, 2011, 17:29 »
0
in addition the term is usually referred as RPI and that indeed is the most important parameter to compare.

Maybe for you, but not for me.

I generally have two kinds of shoots.  First are model shoots, where the expense is high, the sales per image are low, and I can get a lot of images accepted due to changes of outfit and expression.  I can get a hundred photos from a single session with a single model, and although my RPI/RPU will be low, my return on the shoot is potentially very high.

The second type of shoot is everything else: scenics, isolated objects, road signs, whatever.  My expense for the shoot may be low, but the number of images I generate is equally low.  RPI for these images will likely be higher than my model images when taken individually, but lower when compared to the model images taken in aggregate.

My RPI has been dropping like a rock since I started shooting models in 2008.  On the other hand, my revenue from stock has been increasing nicely.  My portfolio size has grown faster than revenue, which only matters if I consider a (to me) false measure like RPI.  Fortunately, I don't.

You didn't understand me. I was not saying that a high RPI is a goal, but it is the only methood of comparing performance accross sites and over time.
For example the monthly earnings report here on MSG, people compare their sales from one MS to another but fail to mention the portfolio size in each site.  a true and correct comparison would be comparing RPI's accross sites.

To sum things up, RPI is a good comparison tool as well as planning things (like what would be your return on a shoot for example)

« Reply #661 on: November 08, 2011, 17:41 »
0
You didn't understand me. I was not saying that a high RPI is a goal, but it is the only methood of comparing performance accross sites and over time.
For example the monthly earnings report here on MSG, people compare their sales from one MS to another but fail to mention the portfolio size in each site.  a true and correct comparison would be comparing RPI's accross sites.

To sum things up, RPI is a good comparison tool as well as planning things (like what would be your return on a shoot for example)

I did understand you.  I just don't agree.

Here's the thing: comparing agencies requires considering several factors, many of which are out of our control.  If I submit to iStock (which I no longer do), then I have to make allowances for the fact that I can generate many more images than they will accept.  Where's the value in a shoot that can produce 100 or more images if their upload limits restrict me to maybe 30 a week?  It's the same with Dreamstime, only worse, since they restrict both the number I may upload and the number of images they consider similar.  They'd restrict me to perhaps ten images of the same model in the same clothing, where Shutterstock may allow me thirty or fifty if they are sufficiently distinct.  So my ability to earn from studio shoots is much more restricted by those two agencies, while others will let me spread the expense over many more images.

Looked at another way, RPI assumes that the production cost per image (CPI?) is relatively constant.  It's not.  And if it's not constant, then we're not really looking at the revenue from a generic image, since we don't have such a thing.  Some images cost $10 to produce, some cost $100 and some cost nothing but time.  What's the point in considering their average revenue when their average cost is all over the map?

You're right that I considered RPI.  I considered it and then rejected it as meaningless for my portfolio.  Your mileage may differ.

« Reply #662 on: November 08, 2011, 17:50 »
0
^^^ I hear you and do you have some good points points.
I can tell you that for us our RPI is VERY stable (standard deviation of 15% if that means anything to you) and is a great way for planning ahead.

wut

« Reply #663 on: November 08, 2011, 18:02 »
0
Where's the value in a shoot that can produce 100 or more images if their upload limits restrict me to maybe 30 a week?  It's the same with Dreamstime, only worse, since they restrict both the number I may upload and the number of images they consider similar.  They'd restrict me to perhaps ten images of the same model in the same clothing, where Shutterstock may allow me thirty or fifty if they are sufficiently distinct.  So my ability to earn from studio shoots is much more restricted by those two agencies, while others will let me spread the expense over many more images.

You say it pays out to have a lot more images of the same model, but does it pay out to do so much more retouching to get a few extra bucks per photo? Or do you retouch a model photo in 5 minutes (and don't strive to get the best result possible)? I did upload more photos of the same model at a couple occasions but it never payed out, especially considering all the extra time I had to put into postproduction. If I uploaded 5 relatively similar shots, 1 at best sells well, a couple get a DL or 2, a couple don't get any. So I try to focus more on quality then on quantity, though I admit I'm having a hard time hitting the right ratio. Because OTOH you never know what will sell. But from my experience uploading too many similars doesn't get you a noticeable bump in sales and lowers the RPI (although I know you don't care for it). I average just about 10 shots per shoot with a single model.

« Reply #664 on: November 08, 2011, 18:21 »
0
RPE (Return Per Effort) makes more sense than RPI.

or at least for multiple sites, RPI (where the I = images uploaded, not accepted).

For example back when SS took them, random background texture shots were pretty low sellers, but they took almost no effort, so they still had a decent RPE. Now that they are mostly rejected - they aren't worth the effort. (but the old ones submitted back in the day are still there selling every once in a while).

« Reply #665 on: November 08, 2011, 18:25 »
0
You say it pays out to have a lot more images of the same model, but does it pay out to do so much more retouching to get a few extra bucks per photo? Or do you retouch a model photo in 5 minutes (and don't strive to get the best result possible)? I did upload more photos of the same model at a couple occasions but it never payed out, especially considering all the extra time I had to put into postproduction. If I uploaded 5 relatively similar shots, 1 at best sells well, a couple get a DL or 2, a couple don't get any. So I try to focus more on quality then on quantity, though I admit I'm having a hard time hitting the right ratio. Because OTOH you never know what will sell. But from my experience uploading too many similars doesn't get you a noticeable bump in sales and lowers the RPI (although I know you don't care for it). I average just about 10 shots per shoot with a single model.

As you say, I keep my retouching to a minimum.  Get the composition right in camera, adjust levels in ACR, fix skin with Portraiture, clean up whatever's necessary with the healing brush, and move on to the next photo.  I'm not an aggressive retoucher, and like to enhance what I captured on the day without changing it dramatically.  

I have a very high rate of acceptance at Shutterstock, so they must not hate what I'm giving them.  And I often get sales of multiple images from the same series, particularly at Shutterstock, 123RF, and Deposit, and less often at other sites.  I guess somebody (or a bunch of somebodies) sees value in different presentations of the same subject.

But my original point stands: RPI doesn't tell me anything I care to know.  Revenue matters, not RPI.  I can always increase RPI by deleting images that don't sell well, but how does that make me more money?

« Reply #666 on: November 08, 2011, 18:27 »
0
RPE (Return Per Effort) makes more sense than RPI.

Yep.  Although a lot of what I shoot for stock I'd shoot anyway.  I like doing this, so doing less of it to optimize RPE would make me unhappy.  :'(

wut

« Reply #667 on: November 08, 2011, 19:37 »
0
RPE (Return Per Effort) makes more sense than RPI.

Yep.  Although a lot of what I shoot for stock I'd shoot anyway.  I like doing this, so doing less of it to optimize RPE would make me unhappy.  :'(

I do the same half of the time. It's not very profitable for me, but at least I enjoy doing it. I really love doing it most of the time :) . And the best thing is, I often think it's gonna be a boring shoot, but it has to be done, it's stock photography. But halfway over the shoot I realize how much fun I'm having with the model(s), the crew (when a MUA and assistant are present), all the laughing...But from time to time I really have to do a conceptual shoot, something for the soul. I still upload it to MS sites and am happy for every cent that I earn with those shots (since I know they're not stocky)

« Reply #668 on: November 09, 2011, 15:31 »
0

There's nothing to be 'proud' of there at all. Your status at Istock is purely a business decision and emotion should have nothing to do with it. How can you be proud of something that is essentially available for free to anyone who requests it? Let's see just how 'proud' you are to be exclusive in a couple of years time. Actually, by then it might be something to be proud of because they'll be far fewer in number than today.

spot on, there are way too many emotions bandied around in this and other forums.

it's a business plain and simple


Gotswyck, is right on that one. In a couple of years time, the number of contributors will be cut in half,  not just IS but in the entire micro business. Always happens.

Now I've been in micro awhile, but just started actively paying attention to the overall numbers and economics recently, so I might be ignorant, but...
when has this happened before?  I thought the number of contributors in the microstock industry as a whole has pretty much increased monotonically since its inception.

helix7

« Reply #669 on: November 09, 2011, 15:42 »
0
...when has this happened before?  I thought the number of contributors in the microstock industry as a whole has pretty much increased monotonically since its inception.

I think lagereek was referring to the folks who do this as part of all of their income. Semi-pros and pros. The suggested implication is that there will be far fewer people doing this in those capacities in a few years time.

RacePhoto

« Reply #670 on: November 09, 2011, 23:00 »
0

Now I've been in micro awhile, but just started actively paying attention to the overall numbers and economics recently, so I might be ignorant, but...
when has this happened before?  I thought the number of contributors in the microstock industry as a whole has pretty much increased monotonically since its inception.

Not so sure about that, it was a climbing number per year and then two or three years ago, new members started dropping. I don't think it's been growing at a constant rate at any point. If you want, I'll start another topic and show some new artist numbers for the last seven years? I always enjoy investigating and looking at trends.

As for the number of photos, yes, that's seems to be increasing at a rapid but steady rate.

« Reply #671 on: November 10, 2011, 09:57 »
0
>If you want, I'll start another topic and show some new artist numbers for the last seven years?

Would like to see those numbers.... and even more important, I'd love to see your traffic stats comparing istockphoto.com with the other top microstock sites. I've looked at them on alexa and it's hugely depressing... would love to see what you have.

« Reply #672 on: November 10, 2011, 12:33 »
0
I've seen a more or less steady decrease in downloads and $ ever since early 2011.  This current month is on track to be the worst month ever, since going exclusive.

I'm assuming, based on some of the comments on this thread, that IS is losing market share and the decline is not merely because of the economic slowdown.

The obvious question is what, if anything has IS done to drive away their customers?  If the decline is as serious as it appears to be, then what are they going to do about it? 

I'm not going to ride this sucker to the bottom ... if Nov and Dec continue this way then I'll have to consider moving my portfolio elsewhere.

helix7

« Reply #673 on: November 10, 2011, 13:31 »
0
...The obvious question is what, if anything has IS done to drive away their customers?  If the decline is as serious as it appears to be, then what are they going to do about it?...

I think they know that buyers are unhappy and that was evident in the line of questioning seen in the recent customer survey. Questions about prices, where else people buy images, what they don't like about the istock credit system, the confusing nature of the different credit prices and image collections, and how much effort would it take to move their business elsewhere seemed to indicate that they know buyers are leaving, they're fearful of an increased rate of departure, and they are interested in finding out what they can do about it.

The problem I see is that even if the survey suggests that there are pricing problems and istock is willing to acknowledge those problems, they're unlikely to take the necessary action to correct the problem. The solution to these problems is to simplify the pricing structure and cut prices. However that solution goes against the last couple of years of change at istock. It's essentially asking management to be willing to take less money for each sale, and to possibly reassess their higher priced collections. Worse yet, it's surely a pay cut for contributors, at least in the short-term, until sales volume picks back up.

I think they're well aware of what the problems are, and that survey was just a means of confirming the obvious. Whether or not they're willing to put a solution into action is a whole other story.

« Reply #674 on: November 10, 2011, 13:52 »
0
...  It's essentially asking management to be willing to take less money for each sale, and to possibly reassess their higher priced collections. Worse yet, it's surely a pay cut for contributors, at least in the short-term, until sales volume picks back up.

I think they're well aware of what the problems are, and that survey was just a means of confirming the obvious. Whether or not they're willing to put a solution into action is a whole other story.

Besides those fairly rational reasons why management might have for not wanting to back down and lower prices, simplify the collections, etc. there are the irrational reasons.  Someone in management might have done a big selling job and convinced the decision makers that it was a great idea to raise prices, provide often similar-looking content at vastly different prices, import large collections of older content without close inspections, etc.  Or maybe it was a top management person who came up with the idea.  They may have to be beat up pretty bad by the customers and by the company owners/board of directors before they admit that they were wrong.  Or maybe they'll never admit they were wrong, and they'll simply have to be replaced.

I have witnessed stagnant, scared management before in a large company.  In my experience the biggest problem of all, the one that damages companies the most, is not an unwillingness to accept new ideas or to change the approach in technology or sales ... the really big problem is that people in responsible positions often have a very hard time holding their underlings truly accountable ... by telling them bluntly that they screwed up, by moving them to other jobs and shifting their responsibilities, or by firing them.  The more that management hangs out together at parties, on vacation, etc. the more close they become and the more slack the company becomes.  They would rather go down with the ship than make a scene with their buddy who just happens to be steering the ship onto the rocks.

Just saying ...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
6390 Views
Last post October 25, 2011, 01:02
by MicrostockExp
17 Replies
5989 Views
Last post September 18, 2012, 15:44
by tavi
2 Replies
5455 Views
Last post March 16, 2016, 06:25
by mirkic
17 Replies
5528 Views
Last post May 04, 2017, 16:38
by heywoody
28 Replies
13499 Views
Last post July 25, 2017, 01:34
by zorandim

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors