pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales dropping. Istock especially.  (Read 78566 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: September 20, 2011, 04:47 »
0
Right but I and others have tried to put not too similar pics in microstock, matter of fact they got lost. The microstock market seems to demand the same pictures over and over or none of them. There are only two ways to be successful with not too similar or special pics: either you place them in special collections like Vetta and TAC, or you place them on good macro sites like Getty and Corbis. Otherwise you waste time and money. Microstock is about similar pictures its about proven standards, if you're pictures are special place them in a special shop.

I understand your point, but I have to disagree a bit. I think submitting the same business handshakes will be really bad for everyone. Maybe not now, but eventually. There are limits how many handshakes the customers need. They need some new handshakes with current clothing trends etc., but there are limits. If we continue to make new "same" pictures over and over, it's very logical that our RPIs will fall, lower and lowe because the sales are dividided amongst too many images.
Almost none of my new bestsellers are "different" in some way, they don't have that much competition. I have found some niches that are not "too niche", but just enough to be different. The real niche and specialist images belong some other places than micros.

I think there is a middle ground somewhere; just a bit "different" images that will sell. They might not be bestsellers, but better than average - just because they are different in some way. Totally oddball images that sell only once or twice are not good microstock images.

Here is what the microstock sites should do: They should stop rejecting for "low commercial value" (if it's not some clear cases of pets and sunsets), and stop rejecting for artistic choices ("harsh shadows" or "uneven lighting" that SS uses a lot). Maybe then people would produce more "different" imagery instead of the light high-key stuff that looks like it's shot in a light box. The best thing would be to let the customers decide by using clever search algorithms and perhaps throwing away garbage that hasn't sold in - let's say - three or four years.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 04:56 by Perry »


grp_photo

« Reply #151 on: September 20, 2011, 04:56 »
0
I have hundred times (money wise) more success if I place my special/not too similar in macro or via my subagencies in the TAC. I tried both ways before but too place special/not too similar pics in micro nowadays is a big waste of money, they do have overwhelming more potential if placed right.

« Reply #152 on: September 20, 2011, 04:57 »
0
I have hundred times (money wise) more success if I place my special/not too similar in macro or via my subagencies in the TAC. I tried both ways before but too place special/not too similar pics in micro nowadays is a big waste of money, they do have overwhelming more potential if placed right.


I'm not talking real niche/specialist images, just images that are done a bit differently in some way.

Let's say I would want to shoot some business handshake images. These would some of the obvious choices:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-2304477-handshake.php (hands against plain studio backdrop)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-4705569-deal.php (hands against a field and blue sky)
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-16970382-unity-of-professionals.php (business people in brightly lit office)

Here are some "a bit different" choices that might get sold even at micros: (just a quick search at Getty's)

http://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/dv631014a/Digital-Vision (frog perspectice)
http://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/985781-012/Stone (artistic blur, would get rejected on almost every microstock site)
http://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/88586601/Workbook-Stock (reflection in a glass table, would get rejected for "poor framing or cropping" :))
http://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/97595983/Flickr
http://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/81867587/Stone (I have not a clue what this is about :))
http://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/115622370/Cultura (Some concept with a curtain)

I'm almost sure if thes eimages were submitted at micros they wouldn't get buried as easily as some very basic average quality run-of-the mill handshake images.

Yes, the microstock images are some of the most popular ones with thousands of downloads. The problem is that everyone of the linked images already have - let's say - 100 similiars for sale, If you are going to succeed with a similiar image, you really need to have the best image and luck.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 05:15 by Perry »

grp_photo

« Reply #153 on: September 20, 2011, 05:16 »
0
I fully understand you, just believe me and give it a try the results will speak for itself.

« Reply #154 on: September 20, 2011, 05:23 »
0
I fully understand you, just believe me and give it a try the results will speak for itself.

Yes, I sell my specialist/niche images as RM, the results are varying from very poor to very good, depending mostly on "luck".

You go ahead and shoot another apple isolated on white, If you have luck you could earn $2.67 in three years :D

Meanwhile I'll keep shooting familiar concepts with some new twists...
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 05:24 by Perry »

grp_photo

« Reply #155 on: September 20, 2011, 05:29 »
0
I'm not talking about RM-RF that is not the point.
And I'm not talking about obscure images I'm talking exactly about the twist and that these images are poorly placed in traditional microstock.  (have to laugh myself about the term 'traditional microstock')

lagereek

« Reply #156 on: September 20, 2011, 05:41 »
0
" the cream always floats to the top"  well thats what we want to believe isnt it?  yes maybe in the old days or 5 years back but not now,  forget it.  A bad search or best match,  can totally slaughter a top image,  it gets buried like the rest and fades away into oblivion. Thats that. Too many images, too many contributors, this and that.

« Reply #157 on: September 20, 2011, 05:47 »
0
" the cream always floats to the top"  well thats what we want to believe isnt it?  yes maybe in the old days or 5 years back but not now,  forget it.  A bad search or best match,  can totally slaughter a top image,  it gets buried like the rest and fades away into oblivion. Thats that. Too many images, too many contributors, this and that.

Yes, but if there were less of the "same" images, there wouldn't be so much stuff to get buried under.

I of course agree with the "too many images, too many contributors" part.

lthn

    This user is banned.
« Reply #158 on: September 20, 2011, 06:09 »
0
Theres too much of everything. Time for WWIII

lagereek

« Reply #159 on: September 20, 2011, 06:10 »
0
" the cream always floats to the top"  well thats what we want to believe isnt it?  yes maybe in the old days or 5 years back but not now,  forget it.  A bad search or best match,  can totally slaughter a top image,  it gets buried like the rest and fades away into oblivion. Thats that. Too many images, too many contributors, this and that.

Yes, but if there were less of the "same" images, there wouldn't be so much stuff to get buried under.

I of course agree with the "too many images, too many contributors" part.

Less of same images,  ofcourse!  trouble is, micro agencies seem to encourage copy cats. The old trad agencies didnt want to know copys.

XPTO

« Reply #160 on: September 20, 2011, 08:46 »
0
" the cream always floats to the top"  well thats what we want to believe isnt it?  yes maybe in the old days or 5 years back but not now,  forget it.  A bad search or best match,  can totally slaughter a top image,  it gets buried like the rest and fades away into oblivion. Thats that. Too many images, too many contributors, this and that.

Yes, but if there were less of the "same" images, there wouldn't be so much stuff to get buried under.

I of course agree with the "too many images, too many contributors" part.

Less of same images,  ofcourse!  trouble is, micro agencies seem to encourage copy cats. The old trad agencies didnt want to know copys.

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.

An agency that has a payout limit at $100, prefers to have $1000 distributed by 20 contributors ($50 each) that will give them 1 year of interests or more, than 1 contributor that earns those $1000 and will withdraw at the end of the month.

I bet the agencies have earned millions of dollars just in interests from income that never reaches payout and others that gave/up forget and already have money to be paid but don't bother to check.

So, many of these agencies won't do anything to delete images that bury new content from active contributors simply because they are interested in delaying the payments.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #161 on: September 20, 2011, 09:10 »
0
There has been another big best match shakeup overnight. My top iceberg pic, with over 400 sales is now around position 300, photos only, in the best match, under photos of lettuce and a lobster in an ice block inter alia. My next flaming iceberg is at best match position 539
I also have not one photo in the top 200 photos of African elephant despite some flamers and two Vettas. But not to worry - EdStock's Quelea pics have risen in that search, and 'his' dark eles have bounced back up - they were sinking down.
Yet again: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
(for those who think iStock is againt independents, there are plenty of indy pics above mine in both these searches)

Added: seems Editorial is getting a push. I've got some Editorials high/quite high in other searches. That's why Ed has risen: there aren't many Editorial Elephant pics.
Oh, hey I've got one, which was originally rejected for the main collection because of a radio collar. Why's it not in the top 200 with Ed's queleas? Back to paranoia.  ;)
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 09:14 by ShadySue »

« Reply #162 on: September 20, 2011, 09:15 »
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.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 09:18 by gostwyck »

« Reply #163 on: September 20, 2011, 09:29 »
0
There has been another big best match shakeup overnight. My top iceberg pic, with over 400 sales is now around position 300, photos only, in the best match, under photos of lettuce and a lobster in an ice block inter alia. My next flaming iceberg is at best match position 539
I also have not one photo in the top 200 photos of African elephant despite some flamers and two Vettas. But not to worry - EdStock's Quelea pics have risen in that search, and 'his' dark eles have bounced back up - they were sinking down.
Yet again: "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
(for those who think iStock is againt independents, there are plenty of indy pics above mine in both these searches)

Added: seems Editorial is getting a push. I've got some Editorials high/quite high in other searches. That's why Ed has risen: there aren't many Editorial Elephant pics.
Oh, hey I've got one, which was originally rejected for the main collection because of a radio collar. Why's it not in the top 200 with Ed's queleas? Back to paranoia.  ;)

I've revised my thinking about istock being against just indies...I pretty much now think istock is against everyone but themselves and anyone who facilitates their daily trip to the bank, which means a small percentage of the overall contributors.

« Reply #164 on: September 20, 2011, 09:41 »
0
There has been another big best match shakeup overnight.

Ouch! That's horrific. It looks like it is 95% geared towards newish images, with or without any downloads. Judging by the few test-searches I've tried my sales could be slaughtered if it stays like this.

« Reply #165 on: September 20, 2011, 10:00 »
0
There has been another big best match shakeup overnight.

Ouch! That's horrific. It looks like it is 95% geared towards newish images, with or without any downloads. Judging by the few test-searches I've tried my sales could be slaughtered if it stays like this.

This explains it!!!

I'm in shock looking at today's vs yesterday's numbers.  I earned $62 at IS yesterday, and today we're halfway through the day and I'm at $5.  (And this is a Tues vs. Monday.  Tuesdays are generally better, at least for me... all the more shocking.)

Has ANYONE benefited from this shakeup?

lisafx

« Reply #166 on: September 20, 2011, 10:11 »
0
There has been another big best match shakeup overnight.

Ouch! That's horrific. It looks like it is 95% geared towards newish images, with or without any downloads. Judging by the few test-searches I've tried my sales could be slaughtered if it stays like this.

This explains it!!!

I'm in shock looking at today's vs yesterday's numbers.  I earned $62 at IS yesterday, and today we're halfway through the day and I'm at $5.  (And this is a Tues vs. Monday.  Tuesdays are generally better, at least for me... all the more shocking.)

Has ANYONE benefited from this shakeup?

Not me, that's for sure.  Too bad.  Sales were picking up nicely after the summer slump.  Glad Istock put a stop to that. ;) :P


« Reply #167 on: September 20, 2011, 10:17 »
0
Theres too much of everything. Time for WWIII

The squeeze has started back in 08.  globalization and expansion has peaked. Economy is terrible worldwide and thats the main source of sales dropping. Everyone talks about the arab spring as a good thing. The arab spring is about the lack of jobs and young people having to revolt and blame the people in charge for their situation. I give a 2 year buffer before crisis mode.

Maybe this is what 2012 is all about  ;)

« Reply #168 on: September 20, 2011, 10:29 »
0


The squeeze has started back in 08.  globalization and expansion has peaked. Economy is terrible worldwide and thats the main source of sales dropping.



I'm not so sure.  I think the biggest reason most people are seeing falling sales is the increased competition and not the economy. 

I see microstock as the type of industry that actually does well in an economic downturn. 

Reason #1: most companies are making less money and are cutting their budgets for advertising, promotion, etc.  They turn to a cheap alternative to the expensive image houses.  Sure, many have been doing this for years already, and maybe those are buying less microstock than they did a few years ago, but I feel there are still a lot of big buyers out there who are just now making the jump to ms or will do so as they tighten their belts.

Reason #2: this may just be the case for my port, but I think that as a lot of people are losing jobs or just entering a job market without openings, they're turning to self promotion through blogs, websites, etc.  (Just from my own investigative work, I think blogs and websites for consultants and other tiny upstart businesses are my biggest customers.)  They don't have the money to buy expensive images, so (if they're not stealing them) they turn to microstock.

XPTO

« Reply #169 on: September 20, 2011, 11:04 »
0
I think we should also consider that the gap between Micro and Macrostock is not so evident nowadays.

For example, I've been licensing  a reasonable number of images at alamy at around $6 and sometimes less. And even if this is the price charged for images around 1800 pixels on the longer side, the fact is that the RF of alamy allows much more than any of the EL's in micro.

Getty also has deals with clients for prices similar to these and Agefotostock created recently a "Micro" collection.

So, may Microstock, among many other reasons, be facing new competition from the traditional agencies? The average licensing price in my traditional stock agencies dropped more than 50% (RM and RF). Now the average sale is about $70 (full price) contrary to almost $200 in 2008.

« Reply #170 on: September 20, 2011, 11:33 »
0
Yawn, everyone else has moved along to the topic at hand, we don't need a book on the matter.

Funny statement from someone who hasn't made a single useful post in this discussion, which by the way was killed around post 72 by Yuri himself. Since then very little is discussed about the original topic.

In fact, this topic is as useless as all the other crying about falling sales. Very, very little has been added to what has been said ad nauseum in other discussions. Not even the economy part was talked about sufficiently to understand the current situation and allow us to adapt to what is coming. It's just whining all over again.

It's only missing the contributors with a portfolio of 10 images contradicting everyone else because he had 5 dl's as IS and call it a BME...

As for the original discussion, I may add that the fact that some agencies, like SS, continue to accept almost all kind of crap submitted to them burying great work right from the start, and in no way protect active contributors with a good collection is a reason for many of those who takes this as a business see falling income.

I personally reduced the number of submissions I send to micro because I don't like to see 21mp images buried under lots of images of the same search with much less quality and a 10th of the resolution. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people better and more active than me, but they are probably more annoyed than me.

I believe that agencies love those old images from inactive contributors to a certain point, since they got a "long tail" income out of them, without the contributors withdrawing their money.

This way they get to keep the money in the banks generating a very nice revenue through interests, while the active contributors get their money out, monthly. And at this point they don't need many new images since all has been covered and the vast majority of the images won't go out of fashion that easily.


You made some excellent points and I agree SS is not the best place for quality submitters. I also think part of SS's strategy is to keep those barely good enough but salable images coming in in mass. It does not bother them much that quality work is buried because they can keep more of the money those lower quality images generate because most of the new submitters that are helped along by the crew in the critique area rarely make payout and they are in the lowest pay tier.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 11:36 by gbalex »

RacePhoto

« Reply #171 on: September 20, 2011, 12:09 »
0
I'm still laughing every time I read a new Best Match comment how it "hurts everyone" (which is impossible!) or how it's hurting someones sales and placement, and it seems everyone here. So who's getting all those sales and all that top placement while "everyone else" is getting screwed?  ??? What will be the cause for lower sales when the best match claim finally goes away. What problem will be the new whipping post for why sales are down?

I wanted to add this to the thread: 2008 Microstock Secrets on DT. Interestng article. "...the average RPI (return per image) is around $3-4 up to as much as $10 for some Microstock SuperStars'. Yuri also said that the RPI in microstock is now close to or exactly the same as the average for traditional stock."

Here we are 2011 and it seems to have changed. That's why this thread was started in the first place? Sales dropping, especially on IS.

I agree with the people who have figured that Microstock growth at a high rate, couldn't keep going on forever. Things are leveling off, stabilizing. Soon some more of the smaller agencies will be waving good-bye to the marketplace. They have taken their 80% and profited off our backs, the gold mine is tapped out. Only the big strong agents will survive.

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.

Anyone with any sense will see that the train has left the station. Those who are on it, may still be in for a good ride. New people entering Microstock, may find it's a huge waste of time trying to catch up.

Yes sales are dropping everywhere, especially on IS. But by the way, PP sales on IS are up for me. Sign of the times.

People claiming you can make money with those leftover pictures on your hard drive, or get into it with a P&S, or make a good income from a hobby or make $x RPI anymore, especially considering overstocked agencies and rejections... please stop!  

Because Yuri pointed it out and maybe it looked like I was disagreeing and I also didn't post a link to the original interviews and article. Best that I add that!

http://blog.dreamstime.com/2008/11/05/secrets-of-microstock-superstars_art27749

No I don't disagree with anything in the interviews or what he said now. My opinion is the times have changed, the PRI isn't what it used to be, the future isn't as bright for new contributors as it may have been in 2008. Hope that clears up my intentions.




I still believe that Istock is doing very well. I must say, hands down, they are exceptionally good at what they do. I say this even dough there are so many things with Istock I would very much like to see changed. 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.
 


Believe it or not, you have 8817 files on IS not 6000. I suppose that proves that you really don't watch them closely.  8)
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 13:30 by RacePhoto »

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #172 on: September 20, 2011, 12:46 »
0
Seems this post has gone a little off topic.
I remember the John Lund interview and I actually agree with my own statements made at that time. It was a wake-up call and needed at that time, and it did work somewhat. However, I don't like forum posts that are direct and opinionated without knowing who I am talking to and that that somebody will put their name on what they are saying. The possibility to say what you want and hide away and not be held responsible on forums tends to make people much more aggressive and argumentative than they would have been in real life. So. I listen when people are not smurfs, trolls as they are called.
I still believe that Istock is doing very well. I must say, hands down, they are exceptionally good at what they do. I say this even dough there are so many things with Istock I would very much like to see changed. 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.
Istock's business model is certainly not buying or acquiring good collections anymore. They have gone completely away from that. Back four five years ago, Getty would buy a new fancy collection every second month or so. How many such collections has Istock/G bought the last two years? Not any really. Jupiter you might think, but that was before the change in management. I believe that Getty's plan is simple: Be superb at distributing and managing user generated content, Maximize profit, cut out anyone that does not want to go this direction, minimize or camouflage commissions through complex systems while still keeping the carrot right in front of the photographer - but making the leap to get it longer and longer. Then I think it also involves stopping potential threats in the industry while they are small, such as Picscouts little hidden gem/ace (which was public but very few saw the implications of - now sold to Getty). And as a shocker: I think the ambition is to sell Getty/Istock with-in two years from now and make a huge profit for the initial buyers. :) Now with a much higher revenue and profit it would sell higher.
So. I think that the major attempts we have seen from macro stock photographers to enter micro with huge collections has had that very intention - getting bought by Getty. They might just have to settle for royalties now, there are no such attempts in the works because it is not Getty's focus anymore. A big profit to show off, rendering a higher sale tag (short term) is however. :)
So the way I see it, we are in it for the long howl. That's why economy matters and that's why I asked about it in this forum, to get a reference.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 12:51 by Yuri_Arcurs »

« Reply #173 on: September 20, 2011, 13:10 »
0
I know Yuri to be a true professional, there is no need to point fingers or call names. This is a business people, I make decisions based on the facts I have in front of me.
iStock - Getty and all the others are a business too. They are not interested in what you earn or frankly what you do at this point. The economy is bad almost everywhere,
competition is strong and there are so many great images to choose from. I have to push myself to stay in the game like anyone else. I don't care who gets what, I know what
my needs are and what I need to do to meet them. Now if we spend more time shooting and creating then just maybe other doors will open as well. 

XPTO

« Reply #174 on: September 20, 2011, 13:32 »
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.

I know companies that have agreements with banks where they have a commitment to deposit above a certain value (millions) each week, and by doing so they get very high rates. In fact, when they are under that value a promotion is created to boost sales, even with 0 profit, so they can meet the goal. They profit more by selling products with 0 gain and meeting the goals, than missing it and gaining a 30% profit on each product sale.

More, in the current economy, banks are pushing strongly for people to deposit money since many are in trouble, or fear to be in trouble in terms of liquidity. There's a reason why credit is harder to get. It's not only that banks are more cautious after 2008. It's also because nowadays, when they need to ask to bigger banks for money to lend to their costumers they must pay higher interests to those higher entities. By promoting deposits there's no need to borrow money with high interests and can reduce the interests of loans to the common person or business, becoming more competitive than other banks.

So no, interest rates for big business are not irrelevant and have big implications in the sustainability of banks in the current economy and that's why they are trying to captivate deposits even at the common citizen level.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 13:34 by XPTO »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
24 Replies
14216 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
3400 Views
Last post November 17, 2018, 03:24
by Chichikov

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors