MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales have tanked big time  (Read 180561 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

lagereek

« Reply #750 on: November 18, 2011, 05:44 »
0
I think it is entirely fair and accurate to point out that a number of contributors complaining loudly are contributors with too few files to expect regular, steady sales. say what you will, but it is obviously a factor when someone uploads less than a few hundred files per year.

Why do you think a few hundred ultra high quality, super conceptual and edgy images wouldn't be enough? I think you can earn more by adding 400 stunning images than 2000, that are good, but not really special and standing out. And usually those that upload as much as 2k/year don't do creative stuff, mostly boring studio isolations etc. Or even if it's high quality and diverse like Sean's it looks like it's not enough. But it could be if a tog could make 400 awesome, mostly A/V files.

In a normal agency, yes!  that would work fine and do so. We are not dealing with a normal agency, we are dealing with an agency who invents a search which favours some and kills off others. The old adage, " cream will always float to the top" ,  is a hoax, especially with 15 million images all battling with each other.
If you construct a search or a best match where images does not have to earn their right for exposure but instead just thrown there, hoping for the best and at the same time, cutting off certain parts of the world with "local searches", etc.  Sorry 400 top notch shots wont even pay for coffee.


wut

« Reply #751 on: November 18, 2011, 05:56 »
0
I think it is entirely fair and accurate to point out that a number of contributors complaining loudly are contributors with too few files to expect regular, steady sales. say what you will, but it is obviously a factor when someone uploads less than a few hundred files per year.

Why do you think a few hundred ultra high quality, super conceptual and edgy images wouldn't be enough? I think you can earn more by adding 400 stunning images than 2000, that are good, but not really special and standing out. And usually those that upload as much as 2k/year don't do creative stuff, mostly boring studio isolations etc. Or even if it's high quality and diverse like Sean's it looks like it's not enough. But it could be if a tog could make 400 awesome, mostly A/V files.

In a normal agency, yes!  that would work fine and do so. We are not dealing with a normal agency, we are dealing with an agency who invents a search which favours some and kills off others. The old adage, " cream will always float to the top" ,  is a hoax, especially with 15 million images all battling with each other.
If you construct a search or a best match where images does not have to earn their right for exposure but instead just thrown there, hoping for the best and at the same time, cutting off certain parts of the world with "local searches", etc.  Sorry 400 top notch shots wont even pay for coffee.

You mentioned 15 mil images, are you including SS into this description as well? Is this working in trad agencies? Because I've read some having not only tens of thousands of images in macro, but also  up to 100k (or more, I'm not sure). Their search sure is messed up, I think search at SS works so much better (and no, not only because I have quite a few premium placements)

lagereek

« Reply #752 on: November 18, 2011, 06:32 »
0
I think it is entirely fair and accurate to point out that a number of contributors complaining loudly are contributors with too few files to expect regular, steady sales. say what you will, but it is obviously a factor when someone uploads less than a few hundred files per year.

Why do you think a few hundred ultra high quality, super conceptual and edgy images wouldn't be enough? I think you can earn more by adding 400 stunning images than 2000, that are good, but not really special and standing out. And usually those that upload as much as 2k/year don't do creative stuff, mostly boring studio isolations etc. Or even if it's high quality and diverse like Sean's it looks like it's not enough. But it could be if a tog could make 400 awesome, mostly A/V files.

In a normal agency, yes!  that would work fine and do so. We are not dealing with a normal agency, we are dealing with an agency who invents a search which favours some and kills off others. The old adage, " cream will always float to the top" ,  is a hoax, especially with 15 million images all battling with each other.
If you construct a search or a best match where images does not have to earn their right for exposure but instead just thrown there, hoping for the best and at the same time, cutting off certain parts of the world with "local searches", etc.  Sorry 400 top notch shots wont even pay for coffee.

You mentioned 15 mil images, are you including SS into this description as well? Is this working in trad agencies? Because I've read some having not only tens of thousands of images in macro, but also  up to 100k (or more, I'm not sure). Their search sure is messed up, I think search at SS works so much better (and no, not only because I have quite a few premium placements)

Well no, I have never heard of any Macro photographer with 100K pics, never. Somehow in the Trad-agencies, the searches works pretty well and thats because commercially viable images are ofcourse given prefferences, which ofcourse they should do, or else nobody is earning anything. The SS-search is the closest to that, they will show commercial top stuff on premiere pages and still find space for new images, etc.
The IS search is constructed, Im sure by some monkey out in the bush, playing with himself. Its a brainless search, showing nothing really and nothing in between either plus a whole heap of collections, pricing-sliders, etc,  everything possible to confuse the poor buyer.

Wait and see, pretty soon some buyer will now come forward here, telling us: Oh no I buy, I have got the time to spend all day searching. You wait and see.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 06:35 by lagereek »

« Reply #753 on: November 18, 2011, 06:35 »
0
I know and as a Diamond merchant, my sales have fallen, well at least by 50%

Earlier you indicated that you had deactivated several blue-flame files and maybe other big sellers, which would automatically make any sales comparisons meaningless.

lagereek

« Reply #754 on: November 18, 2011, 06:40 »
0
I know and as a Diamond merchant, my sales have fallen, well at least by 50%

Earlier you indicated that you had deactivated several blue-flame files and maybe other big sellers, which would automatically make any sales comparisons meaningless.

Yes but thats just during the last three or four days and has no effect at all on sales, contrary, yesteday turned out fairly well. No I had to deactivate a few blue, red flames. I got an offer I couldnt refuse, in any case they were so far down in the IS search, you had to use a JCB to get them up

wut

« Reply #755 on: November 18, 2011, 09:32 »
0

The IS search is constructed, Im sure by some monkey out in the bush, playing with himself. Its a brainless search, showing nothing really and nothing in between either plus a whole heap of collections, pricing-sliders, etc,  everything possible to confuse the poor buyer.


I love this paragraph, you couldn't have put it better  ;D

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #756 on: November 18, 2011, 12:12 »
0
I think it is entirely fair and accurate to point out that a number of contributors complaining loudly are contributors with too few files to expect regular, steady sales. say what you will, but it is obviously a factor when someone uploads less than a few hundred files per year.

Why do you think a few hundred ultra high quality, super conceptual and edgy images wouldn't be enough? I think you can earn more by adding 400 stunning images than 2000, that are good, but not really special and standing out. And usually those that upload as much as 2k/year don't do creative stuff, mostly boring studio isolations etc. Or even if it's high quality and diverse like Sean's it looks like it's not enough. But it could be if a tog could make 400 awesome, mostly A/V files.

that may be true, and I know those accounts exist. I admire them myself. however, with so few files I doubt you're going to ride out best match changes over the years as well as you would if you produced more. anything I've said about size of portfolio obviously includes the caveat that the quality be there. my own portfolio as an example, my first two thousand uploads in general are utterly crap files. I learned 'live' in the sense that I uploaded everything I did in the beginning. I certainly don't upload like that anymore and those are not the files that garner me sales. so I'm not suggesting an oversimplified 'more is better' approach.

if in your example the contributor is talented enough to produce files that sell like hotcakes, the sales will only last so long, images seem to have a shelf-life, or as we've seen can be dropped overnight in the best match.

lisafx

« Reply #757 on: November 18, 2011, 12:22 »
0

The IS search is constructed, Im sure by some monkey out in the bush, playing with himself. Its a brainless search, showing nothing really and nothing in between either plus a whole heap of collections, pricing-sliders, etc,  everything possible to confuse the poor buyer.


I love this paragraph, you couldn't have put it better  ;D

Me too!  I literally laughed out loud so hard I almost knocked my laptop on the floor.  Thanks for that priceless mental picture Christian ;D

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #758 on: November 18, 2011, 12:26 »
0
The IS search is constructed, Im sure by some monkey out in the bush, playing with himself.

I have the very photo you need  :P:


Modified: but the link doesn't seem to work!

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #759 on: November 18, 2011, 12:33 »
0
I think your analogy is funny. but totally inaccurate Christian. when you make statements like that, I lose a little respect for your experience. all things about HOW iStock is run aside, the search is incredible and works very fast. it took a long time to get there, but it certainly is there.

CarlssonInc

« Reply #760 on: November 18, 2011, 12:49 »
0
I'm a bit puzzled as well Christian regarding the blistering critique of the iStock search-engine? To me it doesn't look to shabby, never really have except for short durations when it was being tampered/tuned throughout the years. Tell us what you see and what is so terrible with it. The Getty search in my opinion is A LOT worse.

« Reply #761 on: November 18, 2011, 12:54 »
0
Just did a search using iStock and Shutterstock both are about the same. Shutterstock may be a bit faster but not by much.

« Reply #762 on: November 18, 2011, 12:57 »
0
I love the istock search engine. I love all the options, I dont find them confusing at all.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #763 on: November 18, 2011, 13:17 »
0
I'm kinda in between. I don't think it's anything like as bad as Lagereek complains, except that my files are seldom at or near the top. I think that's what he means anyway.
I don't think it's great either. BM2 had the potential to be great, if they'd put in the manpower to clean up the keywords. But that has clearly been overturned with certain contributers, esp EdStock getting preferential positioning. Oh, his queleas are still in the top 20 for African Elephant. BM2 - punishing spam - should have ensured that these two files dropped like a stone. I've noticed this week on various searches that a lot of spammed files are in high positions on the wrong keyword. I guess they've learned that spamming is no longer being penalised in best match.  :(
Huh, as a tiny, glitch, I wondered why none of my almost nil-selling notebooks were showing up in a search - then I found out that I had keyworded them as notebook (stationery) but that's not a search option. Why do I bother? (Hopefully Duck is onto it!)

helix7

« Reply #764 on: November 18, 2011, 13:48 »
0
Any search engine that's built with the primary objective being to front-load the results with more expensive content is a horrible search engine. They provide the illusion of a quality search tool by building in various filters and controls, but really you don't have much control. Sometimes the perfect image for your search terms is on page 7 just because it's not in a preferred collection, when it should be on page 1 ahead of less relevant results. That's no way to build a search engine that really fits the needs of the customer.

It's more of the same istock philosophy. That whole "We'll give you what we want you to have," instead of, "We'll give you what you're looking for," idea.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #765 on: November 18, 2011, 14:16 »
0
Any search engine that's built with the primary objective being to front-load the results with more expensive content is a horrible search engine.
It's true they were doing that for a while, but I just searched on 'business' and there are only two Agency photos and one Vetta in the top 70, and at least here (UK) there's a wide price range on the top of the first page of best match search. They haven't done the A/V at the top thing for weeks now. So at least they've hopefully learned that lesson.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 14:46 by ShadySue »

« Reply #766 on: November 18, 2011, 14:26 »
0
Any search engine that's built with the primary objective being to front-load the results with more expensive content is a horrible search engine.

I've only just realised that there is now a HUGE bias in favour of exclusive images in the best match results. That could certainly explain some of the disparity in the reports from independent and exclusive contributors. I'm guessing it may have more to do with Istock trying to stop exclusives dropping their crowns (by boosting their sales) than getting the customers to buy more expensive content.

lisafx

« Reply #767 on: November 18, 2011, 14:44 »
0

It's more of the same istock philosophy. That whole "We'll give you what we want you to have," instead of, "We'll give you what you're looking for," idea.

^^This sums it up perfectly.   It is a problem.  

Even rigging the search in favor of exclusive files, while a short term gift to exclusives (and I don't begrudge them) it is only a temporary trick to disguise the overall demise of sales and departure of buyers.  
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 14:48 by lisafx »

« Reply #768 on: November 18, 2011, 15:22 »
0
Even rigging the search in favor of exclusive files, while a short term gift to exclusives (and I don't begrudge them) it is only a temporary trick to disguise the overall demise of sales and departure of buyers.  

Ironically rigging the search in favour of exclusives will also be costing Istock dearly in terms of their percentage profitability that they seemed so keen to improve. They must pay roughly twice the % commission on exclusive sales that they do on independent sales.

helix7

« Reply #769 on: November 18, 2011, 15:25 »
0
It's true they were doing that for a while, but I just searched on 'business' and there are only two Agency photos and one Vetta in the top 70, and at least here (UK) there's a wide price range on the top of the first page of best match search. They haven't done the A/V at the top thing for weeks now. So at least they've hopefully learned that lesson.

The search is still weighted heavily towards exclusive files. Priority #1 in the istock search is still to load the more expensive content towards the front. That may not be V/A, but it's still a biased search.

It makes total sense for the exclusive contributor, but for the buyer it's not providing the best service possible. If the perfect image happens to be a non-exclusive image, it's going to take a few more clicks to get to it. That's not efficient at all.

« Reply #770 on: November 18, 2011, 15:31 »
0
"They must pay roughly twice the % commission on exclusive sales that they do on independent sales."

Exclusive files are more expensive and if I remember the math correctly, they still make more money from exclusive files than independent files.

I think they are just boosting exclusives as a little end of year treat. I dont mind, its been a sad year.

traveler1116

« Reply #771 on: November 18, 2011, 15:32 »
0
It wasn't so long ago that nonexclusive files were at the top of the search either, just a couple months ago I think.

tee

« Reply #772 on: November 18, 2011, 15:38 »
0
I've only just realised that there is now a HUGE bias in favour of exclusive images in the best match results. That could certainly explain some of the disparity in the reports from independent and exclusive contributors. I'm guessing it may have more to do with Istock trying to stop exclusives dropping their crowns (by boosting their sales) than getting the customers to buy more expensive content.


This policy has been around a while as a perk for independents to go exclusive ("Exclusivity brings more attention to your portfolio and makes the most out of all that traffic. You will see a difference." (http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-photos-exclusivity.php)) If they've dialed it up in the past few days because of what's going on, it would fly in the face of the conspiracy theory that they want exclusives off the site because we earn too high a percentage.

Exclusive images sell at a higher price point anyway, so while an indy @ 20% will get 1.2 credits worth of $ out of a medium (6 credit) sale, and an exclusive @ 30% will get 3 credits of $ off a medium (10 credit) sale, iStock earns 7 credits with the exclusive and only 4.8 with the independent.

In any case when they don't communicate at all, except for Lobo bans and posts disappearing, we're left to our own assumptions. At this point they should really address people's worries, since a uniquely high number of big selling members have come out and said they've been having terrible sales. iStock seems to have no desire to ever recapture a sense of community there, which is sad, and not good business IMO.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #773 on: November 18, 2011, 15:57 »
0
If the perfect image happens to be a non-exclusive image, it's going to take a few more clicks to get to it. That's not efficient at all.
It could be, no matter what best match you use, that the perfect image is going to be at the end of the search. Just because that's the one that fits the buyer's needs.

lagereek

« Reply #774 on: November 18, 2011, 16:09 »
0
Helix7,  has got a good point, front-loaded and favourism, weighted towards certain members and ofcourse, we dont care what you want BUT we will give you what we wnat you to buy.

Can anybody here or out there, explain to me HOW that could be a good search?  no matter how fast it is.  Beats me.

BTW, Carlssons-INC,  the SS-search is by default: most popular. i.e.  most sold and commercial.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
6391 Views
Last post October 25, 2011, 01:02
by MicrostockExp
17 Replies
5993 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
5531 Views
Last post May 04, 2017, 16:38
by heywoody
28 Replies
13514 Views
Last post July 25, 2017, 01:34
by zorandim

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors