MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 2013 RC Targets  (Read 9427 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 30, 2013, 08:53 »
0
It's 2 months till the end of the year 2013...
With the last fall in sales on iStockphoto it looks like I will go down by 5% to lower RC level.
Are you going up/down or stay at the same RC level?
Thoughts?


ShadySue

« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2013, 08:56 »
0
I'm projecting 15% down on last year, so it's going to be touch and go right up to the end of the year for me, barring an upswing or some really good ELs which have been in really short supply for me this year.
Pigs might fly, and if they did I could breathe more easily.

Ron

« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2013, 08:58 »
0
Well, with 32 files, and 33 sales, ($86) I will sit firmly at 15% LOL  :)

lisafx

« Reply #3 on: October 30, 2013, 10:02 »
+1
Definitely headed down.  Sales are up, but of course RCs have shrunk to nothing since the permanent "half price  sale". 

« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2013, 10:09 »
0
Down. Getty has succeeded in moving sales away from IS.

« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2013, 10:14 »
+2
Down. Getty has succeeded in moving sales away from IS.

And in increasing its percentage of the take.

« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2013, 10:24 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 08:48 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2013, 10:25 »
+1
Down. Getty has succeeded in moving sales away from IS.

And in increasing its percentage of the take.
I thought Getty profits were going down?  Maybe the site with increasing profits is the cause of declining sales elsewhere?

Increasing their percentage is not causing profits to go up.  The first happens _because_ of the latter.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2013, 10:35 by Sean Locke Photography »

« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2013, 10:33 »
0
much lower back to 2010 numbers

« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2013, 10:35 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 08:47 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #10 on: October 30, 2013, 10:36 »
+2
I know.  I didn't word that right.  You're saying if they're increasing their percentage of the take, their profits should be going up.  I'm saying their profits are going down, and as a reaction, they are trying to increase their percentage of the take.

« Reply #11 on: October 30, 2013, 10:44 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 08:47 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2013, 10:46 »
+1
I know.  I didn't word that right.  You're saying if they're increasing their percentage of the take, their profits should be going up.  I'm saying their profits are going down, and as a reaction, they are trying to increase their percentage of the take.
I'm saying something a little different.  Basically what I'm saying is that it's not Getty transferring sales from higher priced to lower priced (or royalty) but the sub site that has the largest market share doing it.  The PP is a reaction to that.  Rather than a bid to transfer sales from higher to lower it's a reaction to the reality that there are very cheap sub sites out there that are being supported by contributors with 30 million images and their profits are growing along with their market share.

You are now blaming other sites for causing people to drop RC levels on IS. LOL. IS is never ever at fault, are they? Do you actually believe your own BS?

« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2013, 10:50 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 08:47 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2013, 10:58 »
+2
They could have easily provided RC for PP and Getty sales if they wanted to, but they want to get payouts down to 20% since that is "sustainable" or whatever.

« Reply #15 on: October 30, 2013, 10:59 »
-3
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 08:47 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #16 on: October 30, 2013, 11:00 »
0
They could have easily provided RC for PP and Getty sales if they wanted to, but they want to get payouts down to 20% since that is "sustainable" or whatever.
I would guess their take matches the competition very closely.

Not at all

« Reply #17 on: October 30, 2013, 11:02 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 08:47 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #18 on: October 30, 2013, 11:06 »
+22
You are now blaming other sites for causing people to drop RC levels on IS. LOL. IS is never ever at fault, are they? Do you actually believe your own BS?
I was talking about declining sales.  I don't like the RC system at all although I'll be comfortably staying at the same level.

IStock's loss of sales is iStock's fault, not other people's. Consider these points:
After setting up TS, Getty decided to advertise it on the iStock homepage as a cheaper option
The iStock website is horribly slow even when it's working, costing customers valuable time
iStock prices were pushed up too far on a significant part of the content, encouraging budget buyers to look elsewhere for content (I think they even made some comment once about wanting corporate budgets, not low-volume buyers).
iStock pricing is extremely confusing and files can change price dramatically at any time, depending on the latest whim
iStock chose to tick-off its suppliers by squeezing them in innumerable ways, ensuring that it got a heap of bad publicity (and probably alerting a lot of customers to cheaper alternatives in the process)
Getty decided to swamp iS with mountains of third-rate material from old collections it had lying about, hoping to rake in a big return, but actually devaluing the collection
Getty decided to slash iStock's profitablity by cutting the cost of half its files by about 60%, thereby pulling some sales off the higher-priced material without - by all accounts - pulling in any extra customers.
Getty/iS decided to wipe out the community spirit that had allowed it to sail on with exclusives and a number of buyers alike viewing the collection through rose-tinted glasses.

Now, how much of that is really Shutterstock's fault?

ShadySue

« Reply #19 on: October 30, 2013, 11:08 »
+2
^^ only TS, from your list.

« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2013, 11:10 »
+2
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 08:47 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2013, 11:12 »
+3
^^ only TS, from your list.

But even if they had to set up TS, they didn't have to go overboard trying to persuade buyers to desert iS to go to TS, did they? It's as if they decided that iS was dead and everybody was going to switch to subscriptions so let's shift all the buyers to our own subs, rather than have them find SS first.
It was incredibly stupid and defeatest.

ShadySue

« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2013, 11:15 »
+1
^^ only TS, from your list.

But even if they had to set up TS, they didn't have to go overboard trying to persuade buyers to desert iS to go to TS, did they? It's as if they decided that iS was dead and everybody was going to switch to subscriptions so let's shift all the buyers to our own subs, rather than have them find SS first.
It was incredibly stupid and defeatest.
I totally agree, and even recently they were trying to lure buyers (or at least ex-buyers) over there.

« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2013, 11:17 »
+5
There are a lot of sites out there that are much cheaper than SS and yet SS is the one with the strongest growth.

Istock was market leader for a long time, losing their position was entirely their own fault.

As long as they keep looking "elsewhere" for excuses and don't take responsibility for their own company, they won't recover.

But at least in the last 3 months they seem to be at least trying to do something with istock, but it all feels like the company is being run by somebody outside of the industry,or on a very long distance remote. Their decisions don't feel like "organic"business decisions. Maybe it will improve in time,who knows. But SS will keep pushing full speed ahead with an experienced team and long term goals.

I will be dropping from 18 to 17%. My downloads are back to a similar level  like when I was exclusive, but royalties are extremly low. However I am seeing an uptick in video and extended licenses.

2014 will be a very interesting year.

« Reply #24 on: October 30, 2013, 11:19 »
0
IStock's loss of sales is iStock's fault, not other people's. Consider these points:
After setting up TS, Getty decided to advertise it on the iStock homepage as a cheaper option
The iStock website is horribly slow even when it's working, costing customers valuable time
iStock prices were pushed up too far on a significant part of the content, encouraging budget buyers to look elsewhere for content (I think they even made some comment once about wanting corporate budgets, not low-volume buyers).
iStock pricing is extremely confusing and files can change price dramatically at any time, depending on the latest whim
iStock chose to tick-off its suppliers by squeezing them in innumerable ways, ensuring that it got a heap of bad publicity (and probably alerting a lot of customers to cheaper alternatives in the process)
Getty decided to swamp iS with mountains of third-rate material from old collections it had lying about, hoping to rake in a big return, but actually devaluing the collection
Getty decided to slash iStock's profitablity by cutting the cost of half its files by about 60%, thereby pulling some sales off the higher-priced material without - by all accounts - pulling in any extra customers.
Getty/iS decided to wipe out the community spirit that had allowed it to sail on with exclusives and a number of buyers alike viewing the collection through rose-tinted glasses.

Now, how much of that is really Shutterstock's fault?

It's not Gordon Gekko's fault that greed is so good. It just is.  ;)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
32 Replies
9217 Views
Last post April 01, 2011, 05:13
by ProArtwork
48 Replies
9176 Views
Last post January 02, 2012, 22:37
by Tomboy2290
76 Replies
7964 Views
Last post December 03, 2012, 18:14
by enstoker
29 Replies
5857 Views
Last post December 21, 2012, 08:22
by CD123
9 Replies
2281 Views
Last post May 26, 2014, 18:38
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results