pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales dropping. Istock especially.  (Read 78587 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #175 on: September 20, 2011, 13:42 »
0
20% just ask someone else if they would work for 20% commission on their own creative products, working hours and hours, doing everything including keywords and editing, uploading, and start into business knowing that. I bet you'll get screams of laughter, "Are you kidding?" But Microstockers are now down to 15% on IS in many cases. Oh please Sir can I have some more, why not make it 10%, I love licking boots for pocket change.

I guess it all depends how you approach microstock.  I don't think of myself as an artist and each of my images is a part of my soul.  No, I wouldn't spend months painting a huge portrait and accept the terms of a gallery that wanted to keep 85% of the sale.  But I went into microstock with the idea that I would produce a set amount every day, they would earn a projected amount every day based on the agency commission rates, and if I met my goal, I would be very, very happy.   I set short and long term revenue goals.  I met the short term goal in about a year, and just surpassed the long term goal after three years.  So today, I am very, very happy.

I went into microstock knowing the terms, fully understanding and appreciating that the agencies have invested heavily in building, marketing and maintaining their sites, and would put my images out in front of people ready to buy my work.  I could never build a site like this on my own.  To me, this service is worth the revenue share for what (most of) the agencies are doing on their end.  And at the point I decide it's not worth it, I walk away.  I'm no one's slave.  For the time being, they're helping me live a very comfortable life.  My ROI is extremely positive, and my wife regularly thanks me for putting a small amount of time into something that delivers such a big payout.  


RacePhoto

« Reply #176 on: September 20, 2011, 13:51 »
0
20% just ask someone else if they would work for 20% commission on their own creative products, working hours and hours, doing everything including keywords and editing, uploading, and start into business knowing that. I bet you'll get screams of laughter, "Are you kidding?" But Microstockers are now down to 15% on IS in many cases. Oh please Sir can I have some more, why not make it 10%, I love licking boots for pocket change.

I guess it all depends how you approach microstock.  I don't think of myself as an artist and each of my images is a part of my soul.  No, I wouldn't spend months painting a huge portrait and accept the terms of a gallery that wanted to keep 85% of the sale.  But I went into microstock with the idea that I would produce a set amount every day, they would earn a projected amount every day based on the agency commission rates, and if I met my goal, I would be very, very happy.   I set short and long term revenue goals.  I met the short term goal in about a year, and just surpassed the long term goal after three years.  So today, I am very, very happy.

I went into microstock knowing the terms, fully understanding and appreciating that the agencies have invested heavily in building, marketing and maintaining their sites, and would put my images out in front of people ready to buy my work.  I could never build a site like this on my own.  To me, this service is worth the revenue share for what (most of) the agencies are doing on their end.  And at the point I decide it's not worth it, I walk away.  I'm no one's slave.  For the time being, they're helping me live a very comfortable life.  My ROI is extremely positive, and my wife regularly thanks me for putting a small amount of time into something that delivers such a big payout.  

Same as quoting the old Microstock Secrets interview on DT. The times have changed. What was a growth industry has slowed. Not only that, commissions from the agencies have been cut. Getting pictures placed and accepted is harder than only last year. As for the "artist" part, I consider people who draw stick figures or do isolations of sliced vegetables to be "artists" in the content of providing materials for the agencies to sell. It's now about creative ART and all that eternal Who-Ha. I could have just as well said contributors or slaves in the photo factory, I preferred to be somewhat respectful of people who work at their craft of producing images as artists.

Now someone needs a better camera, better editing software, better images, more time to spend/invest on submitting new images while the returns are less than they were before. Shorter commissions, higher expenses to produce the product. It's not 2008 anymore.

stockmarketer you produce 100 images a month, I don't know how that's "a small amount of time into something that delivers such a big payout. " but your .11 RPI shows that at least you know how to direct your energy in the direction of things that buyers want. That's another positive. Someone with 4000 images in three years, it's hard to believe you spend a small amount of time creating them? Maybe you should market your methods, because you seem to be way beyond most people for time and earnings.

Someone new might want to consider the road for growth and advancement, even steady income, is a little rougher than it was two to three years ago. I agree with you, running ones own site is difficult especially getting buyers to find it, when competing with the big multi-million image agencies, selling at low prices. I'm still surprised that anyone makes any sales on their private sites. Best Wishes to them.

And yes, I was responding to the OP. Sales are dropping, everywhere, especially on IS, but for some reason, maybe it's just me, SS is better than ever?
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 14:38 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #177 on: September 20, 2011, 13:52 »
0
I guess it all depends how you approach microstock.  I don't think of myself as an artist and each of my images is a part of my soul.  No, I wouldn't spend months painting a huge portrait and accept the terms of a gallery that wanted to keep 85% of the sale.  But I went into microstock with the idea that I would produce a set amount every day, they would earn a projected amount every day based on the agency commission rates, and if I met my goal, I would be very, very happy.   I set short and long term revenue goals.  I met the short term goal in about a year, and just surpassed the long term goal after three years.  So today, I am very, very happy.

I went into microstock knowing the terms, fully understanding and appreciating that the agencies have invested heavily in building, marketing and maintaining their sites, and would put my images out in front of people ready to buy my work.  I could never build a site like this on my own.  To me, this service is worth the revenue share for what (most of) the agencies are doing on their end.  And at the point I decide it's not worth it, I walk away.  I'm no one's slave.  For the time being, they're helping me live a very comfortable life.  My ROI is extremely positive, and my wife regularly thanks me for putting a small amount of time into something that delivers such a big payout.  

I used to feel this way, but I can't say I do anymore. Maybe, it's that I've seen a years worth of work wiped out in a day by various agencies' policy changes. I know I'll never be the guy that sells huge volumes, so it becomes increasingly important that I get a decent return per sale.

lagereek

« Reply #178 on: September 20, 2011, 14:08 »
0
Ha, Ha, they must be self-torturers,  they have been spanked by SS for months and their answer is THIS best match?  its a complete   joke!  not just new images, its as if they have sent out a bunch of newbies with a p/s,  to win an amateur competition.
This is without doubt the worst most infantile best match I have ever seen and I think they are doing it on purpose!  simply to aggrevate, hoping many of us will remove ports or images out of pure disgust.

good grief, what a total waste of time this is turning out to be. What next? are they going to open a photography school for their new members?
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 14:12 by lagereek »

« Reply #179 on: September 20, 2011, 14:11 »
0
"It was a wake-up call and needed at that time, and it did work somewhat."

A wake up call to what?  And what worked?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #180 on: September 20, 2011, 14:51 »
0
So the way I see it, we are in it for the long howl.
A truer word was never spoken, even if unintentionally.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #181 on: September 20, 2011, 15:06 »
0
20% just ask someone else if they would work for 20% commission on their own creative products, working hours and hours, doing everything including keywords and editing, uploading, and start into business knowing that. I bet you'll get screams of laughter, "Are you kidding?" But Microstockers are now down to 15% on IS in many cases. Oh please Sir can I have some more, why not make it 10%, I love licking boots for pocket change.

Not that I like 20% or less: I find it a bit insulting indeed.

But I know some of my friends working overtime as graphic designers doing creative work as employees for large advertising companies, and I doubt they earn more than 20% of their employers' revenue.

Given the same %, better being exploited part-time by a distant internet business than enslaved full-time by a real boss in the same room.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 15:13 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #182 on: September 20, 2011, 15:46 »
0
^ I see what you're saying and why, I'm just not sure the two examples are analogous. another example is book publishing, royalties are a pittance and shelf life of a book is maybe three months. maybe you could compare books with selling photos, however authors are as much a part of the 'commodity package' as the book. that isn't the case in microstock. I think most of us are unknown to buyers, with obvious exceptions.

I don't feel grateful for being paid anything at all. I know iStock would like us to feel that way, but I've always found those comments to be a little ridiculous
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 15:54 by SNP »

RacePhoto

« Reply #183 on: September 20, 2011, 23:16 »
0
20% just ask someone else if they would work for 20% commission on their own creative products, working hours and hours, doing everything including keywords and editing, uploading, and start into business knowing that. I bet you'll get screams of laughter, "Are you kidding?" But Microstockers are now down to 15% on IS in many cases. Oh please Sir can I have some more, why not make it 10%, I love licking boots for pocket change.

Not that I like 20% or less: I find it a bit insulting indeed.

But I know some of my friends working overtime as graphic designers doing creative work as employees for large advertising companies, and I doubt they earn more than 20% of their employers' revenue.

Given the same %, better being exploited part-time by a distant internet business than enslaved full-time by a real boss in the same room.

Apples and oranges. When I work for someone and they pay me an hourly wage or salary, or a flat fee, it has nothing to do with the final product or their earnings. Not my business.

I make photos and expect a fair percentage. 15% is not a fair percentage, even though they host, market and handle the billing. When I played in bands, the agents took 20% for booking and promotions. When I work the wholesale business I make a commission for sales, but when I stock and distribute myself, I get more. If the agencies stood up for us and protected us against unfair use or theft, I might be swayed a little. They don't do that, we have to wait two months for support to give us boilerplate answers or ignore the issues?

When our work gets stolen, they take the money back, instead of standing in back of their store integrity.

Even 20% is not a fair percentage when we are investing time and sometimes people pay for models, props, time, then we must edit and do the keywording, we take all the risk, investing up front, where an agency can refuse them? Then if we pass they take our work, sell it multiple times and pay us 20% of what it earns?

It's my work, my images and my income. They are just agents doing marketing for me. Of course people will point out, the agencies don't owe us anything (and I agree) and they don't really care about us, which I also agree. If I don't like it, I can go do something else!  :) I'd just be happier and more encouraged to produce more, working harder, if the returns were proportional to the efforts.

Some people think flipping burgers at McDonald's is a good job with advancement potential. Just like some people think making $10 a month at some tiny microstock site (competing with their own images elsewhere) is worth their time.

grp_photo

« Reply #184 on: September 21, 2011, 01:50 »
0
"It was a wake-up call and needed at that time, and it did work somewhat."

A wake up call to what?  And what worked?
Microstock agencies did cut commissions but it affected Yuri less than any other independent so it was quite successful. ;-)
But actually I think he wanted to achieve something  else.

lagereek

« Reply #185 on: September 21, 2011, 01:58 »
0
20% just ask someone else if they would work for 20% commission on their own creative products, working hours and hours, doing everything including keywords and editing, uploading, and start into business knowing that. I bet you'll get screams of laughter, "Are you kidding?" But Microstockers are now down to 15% on IS in many cases. Oh please Sir can I have some more, why not make it 10%, I love licking boots for pocket change.

Not that I like 20% or less: I find it a bit insulting indeed.

But I know some of my friends working overtime as graphic designers doing creative work as employees for large advertising companies, and I doubt they earn more than 20% of their employers' revenue.

Given the same %, better being exploited part-time by a distant internet business than enslaved full-time by a real boss in the same room.

Apples and oranges. When I work for someone and they pay me an hourly wage or salary, or a flat fee, it has nothing to do with the final product or their earnings. Not my business.

I make photos and expect a fair percentage. 15% is not a fair percentage, even though they host, market and handle the billing. When I played in bands, the agents took 20% for booking and promotions. When I work the wholesale business I make a commission for sales, but when I stock and distribute myself, I get more. If the agencies stood up for us and protected us against unfair use or theft, I might be swayed a little. They don't do that, we have to wait two months for support to give us boilerplate answers or ignore the issues?

When our work gets stolen, they take the money back, instead of standing in back of their store integrity.

Even 20% is not a fair percentage when we are investing time and sometimes people pay for models, props, time, then we must edit and do the keywording, we take all the risk, investing up front, where an agency can refuse them? Then if we pass they take our work, sell it multiple times and pay us 20% of what it earns?

It's my work, my images and my income. They are just agents doing marketing for me. Of course people will point out, the agencies don't owe us anything (and I agree) and they don't really care about us, which I also agree. If I don't like it, I can go do something else!  :) I'd just be happier and more encouraged to produce more, working harder, if the returns were proportional to the efforts.

Some people think flipping burgers at McDonald's is a good job with advancement potential. Just like some people think making $10 a month at some tiny microstock site (competing with their own images elsewhere) is worth their time.


Youre forgetting,  when IS merged with Getty,  IS, also had to shoulder all the Getty debts, loans, the entire financial downslope,  thats what you are paying for ;)

michealo

« Reply #186 on: September 21, 2011, 03:27 »
0
Agencies promote all this, simply because they get tenths of thousands of contributors who take months or years to reach payout, and they profit A LOT from the interests of that money in the banks.

<Sigh> Not this old chestnut being wheeled out again. It's not true as the income from low-selling contributors is trivial in comparison to the income from those that do sell in volume.

Think about the numbers. If the minimum payout is $100 then the average account of the 'low-selling contributors' will likely be about $50. Even if there were 20,000 of these contributors it still only amounts to $1M. Sorry but that is small change to a company like Istock. They are paying these contributors only 15% so they have already banked $5.7M from the sales themselves. Also, the money remains as a liability on the books, not as an asset, so it doesn't increase their profit.

Interest? Have you seen interest rates nowdays? It is virtually impossible to maintain the value of an investment as inflation is higher than the interest rates available almost everwhere.

Big companies don't get the same interest rates as common people. They have so much better deals that you can't even imagine because they deposit millions.


Big companies biggest concern these days is not the interest rate but making sure they don't lose the capital due to a bank failure. Siemens for example just withdrew 500 million from a french bank and lodged it directly with the ECB.

RT


« Reply #187 on: September 21, 2011, 07:34 »
0
The fact that they only host about 6000 of my 65000 images makes them a rather small playing in my financial monthly statement, so as a business partner (offer, etc.) I really have very little to do with them.

Yuri

Have you considered pulling your portfolio from there and encouraging your regular buyers to visit a site where you have all your portfolio, tricky one to gauge but it may make more financial sense, it's certainly something I'd consider if I did the level of self marketing your company does.

I haven't noticed as drastic a drop in sales on iStock that you and others have I'm glad to say, but what I have noticed is the increase in sales at SS which, like you, concerns me because of their low commission rates.

There is no doubt, no matter what everyone's individual circumstances, that iStock is not the company it was, could or should have been.

RacePhoto

« Reply #188 on: September 21, 2011, 13:36 »
0
The fact that they only host about 6000 of my 65000 images makes them a rather small playing in my financial monthly statement, so as a business partner (offer, etc.) I really have very little to do with them.
Yuri

Have you considered pulling your portfolio from there and encouraging your regular buyers to visit a site where you have all your portfolio, tricky one to gauge but it may make more financial sense, it's certainly something I'd consider if I did the level of self marketing your company does.


Now there's a thinking man's question. (and I didn't think of it!)  :) The answer would be very interesting.

And keep in mind that Yuri can't be too concerned about IS because he has 2000 more images there, than he thinks he does.  8)

He also did write one of the best advise tips I ever read, and I'm working towards it.

The best number of agencies to have is 1, 2 or 25. (I think it was that and the 25 is a way of saying, put your pictures everywhere that will take them and collect the money. I assumed the 1 was Exclusive somewhere, IS comes to mind and the two would be IS and SS. However, he didn't specify, so that's my guess and opinion, based on ranks and sales.

Personally I'm working towards the ONE RF Agency and that will be SS. (and BigStock from the same family) I don't think that's what anyone ever had in mind. One RM agency = Alamy. I guess that's my two? LOL  :D

Also a good point: "Youre forgetting,  when IS merged with Getty,  IS, also had to shoulder all the Getty debts, loans, the entire financial downslope,  thats what you are paying for." Lager Eek (beer minded)

« Reply #189 on: October 05, 2011, 19:05 »
0
 Hi All,

 Very interesting posts thank you all for your opinions they are fascinating to read. I think the opinions on this post hold a great deal of what people are frustrated about. Thanks again for all the insight. Just to concur my Istock sales have dropped the most in the past year and Shuttersock is still selling as big as ever but that is just my experience, I never count a horse out of the race till it breaks a leg ;) Are we in the home stretch? ;D

Cheers,
Jonathan

« Reply #190 on: October 22, 2011, 23:42 »
0
For me it has been a trend that has been evident for about 12 months. Both IS and FT appear to be losing ground whilst SS continues to grow. I think DT have a fairly loyal customer base so they are just about holding on to their share of the market.

I'd suggest that microstock's explosive growth over the last few years has probably peaked (it had to eventually). In the early days any agency that had enough marketing $'s to make it's presence felt was bound to find new customers and grow sales. Now it's not so easy.

We're probably just witnessing a more mature market in which the existing customer base is making informed choices on where to do their shopping.

Istock have been pushing up prices for years (to our benefit as well as theirs) and maybe they have pushed them a bit too far recently and are starting to pay the price? FT have acknowledged customer resistance to higher priced images by limiting or reducing them on several occasions. In contrast SS has always been acutely sensitive and careful with price increases. SS has a fairly basic but easy to navigate site which always works well and all images are priced the same. It might be as simple as that.

This is exactly my diagnosis as well.  I don't claim to know actual numbers but I suspect available photos for sale internet wide have increased by more than 1000 fold since 2005, and buyers have not kept pace.  I certainly don't think the market is saturated, but very diluted for any individual (even big number guys with great porfolios)

« Reply #191 on: October 23, 2011, 09:16 »
0
"Youre forgetting,  when IS merged with Getty,  IS, also had to shoulder all the Getty debts, loans, the entire financial downslope,  thats what you are paying for "

            You are forgetting Getty sold itself to an investment group for way too much.  Hence the investment group trying to squeeze out money from IS contributors. 


« Reply #192 on: October 24, 2011, 03:08 »
0
I've been a business person all my life (I am 40+).  And this is the only business where I've seen people helping their potential competitors getting on board.   Honestly, I'll never understand it!

This is not the only business where people help eachother :).
A lot of people help eachothers all over the places. You can take almost any place (industry jobs, office jobs and so on).  It is a matter of what person you are.
Even if you take a normal case a people help another to get employed on his work later if the economics go bad maybe the first one will get fired and the later one will still be employed. Such is life.

Personally I've helped several people to get on board on iStock, but some of them didn't managed to have many images/videos on the site. Simply because is a lot of work to do all the time and they didn't have the time or the right personality for it.

I see it as several others has named in the forum. The economy crisis and the fact that there are more and more people who submits (even some few images will be there in the best match fighting with all others) will make it harder to have it sustainable.

« Reply #193 on: October 24, 2011, 04:31 »
0
Whoever is your competitor today, could be your customer tomorrow, or your boss if they buy you...In business I always try to treat everyone with respect and obvious industry information I always share. A market place needs to grow and develop and it usually benefits all players if there is sensible cooperation.

When it comes to istock I have absolutely no problem encouraging others to get into stock and learn the basics of the trade. 99% wont go through with it anyway because stock is very hard work and many people simply dont have a commercial eye, this is even true for pro photographers who come from other fields.

Microstock is built on creating all content on a very low budget - sharing locations, models, software tips, gear.  Without sharing we would have to charge Macrostock prices. But if you share it is quite easy to do and we can all serve a much wider customer market as a result, not just the traditional stock buyers.

Most artist anyway find their own niche and if you are successful you try very hard to offer files that have a distinct style to seperate yourself from the others in your field.

The copycats of course are a problem, because they copy our bestsellers. But in the end, they are not innovative, so you must find a way to stay ahead of them.

It would be a great help if agencies stopped showing number of sales. Getty never does that and as a result my intellectual creation has much better protection. Nobody knows which files sell except me.

istock has fuzzy numbers, but because the volume of sales has dropped, if you see that a file from a new series has more than 10 sales, you can just as easily identify a bestseller.

It would be great if in a first step they remove the numbers, but leave the flames and then maybe a year after that, remove the flames as well. Customers are getting such high quality at superb prices, I sincerly doubt they will buy less if the numbers are not there.

The copycats are the greatest threat IMO, you lose a lot of money because of them and if the search favors new files you are forced to reshoot your own ideas otherwise the money goes to those who copy you. It is a vicious circle that can only be broken if the numbers are removed.

« Reply #194 on: October 24, 2011, 04:43 »
0
Haven't people been training the copycats?  I don't think there's anything wrong with passing on knowledge but when they then become your competition and reduce your earnings, how does that benefit you?  Copycats can't innovate but they reduce the earnings potential of our best images.  I don't think getting rid of the downloads data is going to help much, they can see what's popular in the search and copy that.

They might not be such a problem with Getty because they don't look there but that could change.

I would like people that have just copied lots of best selling images to be given warnings, some images that are almost identical should be removed and they should be told that just copying others is going to lead to a ban.  If they can't produce anything of their own, what's the point in having them?

« Reply #195 on: October 24, 2011, 05:08 »
0
I have trained a lot of people and noone has ever copied me. Obviously I explain the problem to them before we start.

Copycats are normal when you are successful in business. But publishing my sales stats with the download numbers is not good. When the files were sold for 10 cents and it was all for fun, it was different. Now people feed their families from their income, they need better protection. You can always then decide to share a special celebration through your blog or the forums or social networks if you want to, but it will be my personal decision.

« Reply #196 on: October 24, 2011, 05:12 »
0
I would like people that have just copied lots of best selling images to be given warnings, some images that are almost identical should be removed and they should be told that just copying others is going to lead to a ban.  If they can't produce anything of their own, what's the point in having them?

This is the least that I would like to see that iStock does: to put more resources for checking millions of files for copycat.
I welcome the idea to hide the flames and the downloads instead, like cobalt says. People is and will allways get inspirations from eachothers. Of course the most important thing is to get your touch into it instead of re-reproduce someone else work.

« Reply #197 on: October 24, 2011, 05:26 »
0
wouldn't people just seach for best match and copy whatever is at the top that been online for more than 1 month ?

« Reply #198 on: October 24, 2011, 05:59 »
0
At the top of best match might be Vetta files with few downloads. I think it would be very difficult to estimate if a file is worth copying. For the customers you will still need a sort by "popularity" but a file with a blue flame just shouts "copy me, copy me".

Slovenian

« Reply #199 on: October 24, 2011, 06:11 »
0
It would be great if in a first step they remove the numbers, but leave the flames and then maybe a year after that, remove the flames as well. Customers are getting such high quality at superb prices, I sincerly doubt they will buy less if the numbers are not there.

I couldn't agree more, that way, ppl would only buy photos for their quality, not (also) numbers. It would also level the field for new contributors, it really gets on my nerves that old crap sells (I don't mind great old photos selling), just because of its number of DL (and lowers my DL numbers because of that). If that would be incorporated, I'm sure I'd double my sales over night at most sites.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
24 Replies
14219 Views
Last post October 29, 2010, 22:54
by PaulieWalnuts
8 Replies
4801 Views
Last post October 26, 2012, 11:54
by enstoker
10 Replies
5546 Views
Last post December 18, 2013, 05:12
by targoszstock
5 Replies
5117 Views
Last post July 12, 2016, 12:04
by Chichikov
10 Replies
3401 Views
Last post November 17, 2018, 03:24
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors