For me RPI across all the sites I am on has dropped by about a third since 2009-2011 - large but not as dramatic as you show (probably because I never did as well as you).  In the same period for iS alone RPI dropped around 75% compared to only 30% for all agencies and it increased by around 35% for SS.  What a dramatic change.  I assume the iS story will be a model for business schools for the next several years to demonstrate the effects of poor management decisions and how easy it is to take a successful business and kill it.  Too bad.

I don't like to encourage the competition but if I were you I would be reconsidering that whole exclusivity thing - doesn't look like it's working out to your benefit.

It's hard to say much about the graph, you could be doing much better than most people even after your decline depending where you started.  For SS according to their filings they had an average monthly RPI of about 17 cents, down from about 19 last year.  A poll from last year found that 42% of people here had a monthly RPI of less than or equal to 25 cents.  Considering that SS is usually 50-65% of most people's total earnings that would bring the average RPI for all sites to less than 40 cents per month or $4-5 year.

Quote from: tickstock on June 15, 2015, 22:12

It's hard to say much about the graph, you could be doing much better than most people even after your decline depending where you started.  For SS according to their filings they had an average monthly RPI of about 17 cents, down from about 19 last year.  A poll from last year found that 42% of people here had a monthly RPI of less than or equal to 25 cents.  Considering that SS is usually 50-65% of most people's total earnings that would bring the average RPI for all sites to less than 40 cents per month or $4-5 year.

Where did SS come into the equation??

OP states ".....is it just iStock?" and also;

........

I'm stock exclusive at the moment and interested in the experiences of other exclusives and independents.
My RPI has dropped by around 65% over the last 4 years and I'm curious if this dramatic fall is industry wide or limited to istock.

Bringing SS into discussion does not seem unreasonable and would actually provide the best comparison as the largest market share.

Quote from: tickstock on June 15, 2015, 22:12

It's hard to say much about the graph, you could be doing much better than most people even after your decline depending where you started.  For SS according to their filings they had an average monthly RPI of about 17 cents, down from about 19 last year.  A poll from last year found that 42% of people here had a monthly RPI of less than or equal to 25 cents.  Considering that SS is usually 50-65% of most people's total earnings that would bring the average RPI for all sites to less than 40 cents per month or $4-5 year.

Where did SS come into the equation??

It seems obvious doesn't it?  He's trying to compare his RPI with what is going on for nonexclusives.  Shutterstock tells you exactly what the RPI is for their site and for previous years.  You can go onto SS and see that RPI dropped on average by a little more than 10% from last year.  You can also infer from the poll results what the average total RPI would be if you contributed to all the sites. 

Interesting.  For me the average monthly RPI on SS increased every year from 2009-2012 then stayed the same for the next three years.  So far this year it has dropped a penny compared to the last three due to the last two months, where it has been back to where it was in 2009.  So far this month it also is low.  Hmmm.  Of course it is still three times higher than at iS but the drop is worrisome.  If the new changes at FT lead to positive buzz there then maybe it will cause the other agencies to consider contributors as well - we can hope.

Looking through past reports it looks like SS had a steady RPI at 19 cents until this year when it dropped to 17 cents.  They are still accepting massive amounts of files so that number will probably drop again.  It doesn't do much good to compare nonexclusive istock RPI to SS RPI since most people will contribute to both at least it's unlikely anyone would just be on iStock and not on SS as a nonexclusive.  RPI should compare exclusive to total nonexclusive RPI to be meaningful.

The new changes at FT probably won't make an overall positive change.  How many people will stop contributing to other sites because of those changes?  That's the only way other sites will change.  I doubt anyone is going to stop uploading to SS because of those changes.  If FT gains market share how will SS respond?  I don't think they gain anything by increasing royalty rates since that won't stop people from uploading to FT, they may lower prices but that won't be beneficial to contributors.

I think the changes at Fotolia will make a change ...let's see. I wonder how many contributors are not supplying images to small agencies with minuscule returns and those that have minimal commissions. And that is lagging behind....sooner or later buyers realize that the competitor has a broader spectrum of images. Since I left exclusivity I have not supplied with new images to Istock. Why? Because I rather sell the image at a site that pays me a minimum of 30% that a site that has the lowest subscriptions (for nox-ex) and smallest royalties of the whole industry. So yes I think the agencies will have to adapt or fade away. Natural market forces

Quote from: tickstock on June 16, 2015, 08:20

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on June 16, 2015, 07:42

Interesting.  For me the average monthly RPI on SS increased every year from 2009-2012 then stayed the same for the next three years.  So far this year it has dropped a penny compared to the last three due to the last two months, where it has been back to where it was in 2009.  So far this month it also is low.  Hmmm.  Of course it is still three times higher than at iS but the drop is worrisome.  If the new changes at FT lead to positive buzz there then maybe it will cause the other agencies to consider contributors as well - we can hope.

Looking through past reports it looks like SS had a steady RPI at 19 cents until this year when it dropped to 17 cents.  They are still accepting massive amounts of files so that number will probably drop again.  It doesn't do much good to compare nonexclusive istock RPI to SS RPI since most people will contribute to both at least it's unlikely anyone would just be on iStock and not on SS as a nonexclusive.  RPI should compare exclusive to total nonexclusive RPI to be meaningful.

The new changes at FT probably won't make an overall positive change.  How many people will stop contributing to other sites because of those changes?  That's the only way other sites will change.  I doubt anyone is going to stop uploading to SS because of those changes.  If FT gains market share how will SS respond?  I don't think they gain anything by increasing royalty rates since that won't stop people from uploading to FT, they may lower prices but that won't be beneficial to contributors.

iStock still has a large exclusive collection to use as a selling point and are a lot of people actually stopping uploading to them, I'm not sure they are.  SS is the largest part for most nonexclusives where the pressure will be to lower prices to compete with FT, there probably will be no pressure for SS to raise royalties.  Not uploading to iStock will make it harder to replace exclusive RPI even if you don't like the royalty you are getting. 

iStock is paying serious exclusives a higher royalty rate than most of the competition and subs for higher quality work get $2.50.  I think the pressure is going to be on places like SS to lower prices and royalties as FT takes market share.  Those higher priced sites you mention have not been shown to be that great, at least from the almost nonexistent info on what people are making there.  Basically I see nonexclusive work dropping in value faster than exclusive work, there is a lot of pressure coming from all sides just in the last year.

If IS ever wants to get back into business, first thing they should do is scrap that whole keywording idea. That single move would attract much more uploads. I haven't uploaded there in a long time, but it's still my 3rd agency and earnings are still ok. But I will never upload again until they sort out the upload system. Too much time consuming for the financial return.

I have so many files with 0 views and files with one or two views and one or two corresponding sales - leading me to believe that if they were seen more they would indeed sell more. My RPI at iStock isn't too bad, mainly because I have such a tiny portfolio there I think, but the lack of views and the tedious upload process keep me from bothering to upload there even though I have a few hundred micro files I'm sure they'd accept.

My RPI seems fairly steady elsewhere and is rising on DT where I'm earning more than on SS most months despite having 33% fewer files there. They went from my #2 micro earner to #1.

A few years ago my RPI on iStock was significantly higher than on SS or DT even before I pulled much of my port in the protest and had a similar sized portfolio there, but it has declined steeply since I lost my indie E+ files (or whatever it was that you could do to make certain files cost more) and continues its downward trend. To think a few years ago I thought about going indie there tells me how much things have changed.

Meanwhile new files are selling well on SS despite overall sluggishness there the past few months (though this month has already surpassed last month and looks to be back to normal - the past couple of months were half to one-third of normal).

Don't mean to be off-topic but curious to see where Adobe takes fotolia and what SS does in response. Change seems to be the only constant in this industry. 

Not really uploading to IS anymore, but that hasn't really affected my monthly RPI which hovers around 0.15 compared to around 1.00 for SS (Photos only)

Yep became indie in Feb 2013 so RPI went off a cliff at that point!

Yep became indie in Feb 2013 so RPI went off a cliff at that point!

Did you ever manage to replace your istock income as an indie?