pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Buyers Bailing on Istock  (Read 387931 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #425 on: October 31, 2010, 02:20 »
0
Yes, best match is better for Vettas, and so, they are easier to find, but, on the other hand, they cost until 15x (minimun size) what han exclusive regular costs, and that largely levels the said advantage... In theory  it should  be much more difficult to sell. When, for example, some Vetta is a best selling image of a series, having this Vetta the similar regular  images from this series linked in a ligthbox in its own page, I cant avoid thinking costumers judge that this Vetta is better than her siGoogle Translatesters. And, most times, I agree.

What language is this in? I recognise most of the words but no sentences make any sense whatsoever.


« Reply #426 on: October 31, 2010, 05:01 »
0
Quote
Google Translatesters

I think there may be a hint here

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #427 on: October 31, 2010, 05:09 »
0
It's just silly to see one photo that is Vetta (or Agency for that matter) right next to another in the same series that is in the regular collection. So arbitrary and makes it look like a total rip off.
Interesting point of view. Here's my spin on the same phenomenon. My Vettas were almost all chosen by 'someone else'; I think only about two of those I nominated were accepted into Vetta. However, most of those I have have 'similars' in my port. The Vettas which sell (some don't!) sell better than the non-Vettas.
So that formed my strategies for Exc+. Where I had a series and one or two outsold the others, I made them Exc+, since history had shown that buyers preferred them. Buyers on a budget still have a choice of non Exc+ images from the series. Still, the Exc+ images outsell the non-Esc+, presumably proving that these particular ones, for reasons not always apparent to me, are more useful to buyers. Win-win.

« Reply #428 on: October 31, 2010, 10:43 »
0
It's just silly to see one photo that is Vetta (or Agency for that matter) right next to another in the same series that is in the regular collection. So arbitrary and makes it look like a total rip off.
Interesting point of view. Here's my spin on the same phenomenon. My Vettas were almost all chosen by 'someone else'; I think only about two of those I nominated were accepted into Vetta. However, most of those I have have 'similars' in my port. The Vettas which sell (some don't!) sell better than the non-Vettas.
So that formed my strategies for Exc+. Where I had a series and one or two outsold the others, I made them Exc+, since history had shown that buyers preferred them. Buyers on a budget still have a choice of non Exc+ images from the series. Still, the Exc+ images outsell the non-Esc+, presumably proving that these particular ones, for reasons not always apparent to me, are more useful to buyers. Win-win.

Maybe the reason people are buying the Vettas and E+ files is that they appear higher up in the search, as we see best match is populated almost exclusively by Vetta and Agency these days? So people never see the cheaper priced images in the same series unless they really go looking for them. Dunno. As a really low budget buyer, though I look. Well, I used to look. I only have one credit left at iStock with no plans to buy more.

« Reply #429 on: October 31, 2010, 10:58 »
0
Quote
as we see best match is populated almost exclusively by Vetta and Agency these days?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this? I haven't got hours to test this but 2 random searches, set to best match and photos only, produce the first half of the first page with Vetta and Agency, then onwards ordinary files with a scattering of Vetta and Agancy stuff. To say that there's nothing but V and A files is just disingenuous.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #430 on: October 31, 2010, 11:14 »
0

Maybe the reason people are buying the Vettas and E+ files is that they appear higher up in the search, as we see best match is populated almost exclusively by Vetta and Agency these days? So people never see the cheaper priced images in the same series unless they really go looking for them. Dunno. As a really low budget buyer, though I look. Well, I used to look. I only have one credit left at iStock with no plans to buy more.
I've got a Vetta which has sold a few times, but is really low for its main keyword. I can't actually find it at the moment on that keyword, but at one point it was on the last page of a 2000+ image search. However, I did check out another of my Vettas and there are non-exclusive images with no sales ahead of it in a best match search. I found another Vetta with the same main keyword, which has sold >30 times, on the last page of that search.
Actually, I can't work out the current best match at all - except that new uploads drop like stones after about 24 hours (maybe even before that, but not much more after that first slump).
I don't believe all this stuff about buyers only looking at a page or two. On Alamy, I can see that buyers can easily search over 4000 files on the more popular search terms. I guess some Micro buyers might just buy the 'most popular', weird as that seems to me.
However, I do agree that the high prices being rammed to the front might scare off buyers, especially as so many of the brought-in Agency files in particular are 'very average'. (I'm glad I don't compete in the lifestyle sector.

« Reply #431 on: October 31, 2010, 11:56 »
0

Maybe the reason people are buying the Vettas and E+ files is that they appear higher up in the search, as we see best match is populated almost exclusively by Vetta and Agency these days? So people never see the cheaper priced images in the same series unless they really go looking for them. Dunno. As a really low budget buyer, though I look. Well, I used to look. I only have one credit left at iStock with no plans to buy more.
I've got a Vetta which has sold a few times, but is really low for its main keyword. I can't actually find it at the moment on that keyword, but at one point it was on the last page of a 2000+ image search. However, I did check out another of my Vettas and there are non-exclusive images with no sales ahead of it in a best match search. I found another Vetta with the same main keyword, which has sold >30 times, on the last page of that search.
Actually, I can't work out the current best match at all - except that new uploads drop like stones after about 24 hours (maybe even before that, but not much more after that first slump).
I don't believe all this stuff about buyers only looking at a page or two. On Alamy, I can see that buyers can easily search over 4000 files on the more popular search terms. I guess some Micro buyers might just buy the 'most popular', weird as that seems to me.
However, I do agree that the high prices being rammed to the front might scare off buyers, especially as so many of the brought-in Agency files in particular are 'very average'. (I'm glad I don't compete in the lifestyle sector.
---------------------------------------
One thing I've noticed with a few of my better selling files is that when they hit a milestone like 100 or 500 DL's they get bumped to the back of the best match, at least for a time.  I guess this is to minimize the best match feedback loop?  Maybe that is what was happening to your one Vetta image?

« Reply #432 on: November 06, 2010, 07:53 »
0
Don't know if the buyers have bailed en masse but they're not grabbing much of my stuff recently. The first 5 working days of November have been astonishingly low __ sales numbers are 35% lower than the equivalent days in 2009. Fortunately I had 3 EL's this week (very unusual) but without them this week's 'Payout Request' would be at Xmas/New Year levels.

« Reply #433 on: November 06, 2010, 08:03 »
0
I sell Vettas even having similars linked in a lightbox, in the Vetta's page. The "vetta" one often is the most sold of the whole series, no matter how similar are the other photos. I've seen also in legacy files that have become Vetta that from the moment the file was put in the vetta, the whole series sell much more. I suppose that is a side-efect of having the regulars ones linked in the Vettas's page. Te customer finds the Vetta in the first pages, and if it's too expensive for his budget, buys another one of the same series.

« Reply #434 on: November 06, 2010, 11:37 »
0
Don't know if the buyers have bailed en masse but they're not grabbing much of my stuff recently. The first 5 working days of November have been astonishingly low __ sales numbers are 35% lower than the equivalent days in 2009. Fortunately I had 3 EL's this week (very unusual) but without them this week's 'Payout Request' would be at Xmas/New Year levels.


Well, my sales in November so far seem to be holding up well, after a less than shining October.

However, here's an interesting little snippet, for what it's worth:  I keep a (sometimes intermittent) log of total downloads as reported  by the http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/ site, and according to that, overall downloads for October are 35% down on October 2009.

Now there's a big caveat to that - the charts are incomplete and the fuzziness introduced by iStock makes them rather inaccurate, also, based on the same charts, October 2009 was actually a BME for the period I've been keeping track, so that figure of -35% has to be seen in context, other months do show an increase.

And, as it happens, my own downloads in October were also down 35% on October 2009, while my income was actually 35% UP over the same month, partly thanks to a rise in canister level but in addition presumably thanks to raised prices, E+ and Vetta - so if iStock's income is comparable, they're not doing so bad!  But then, that seems to be their strategy - fewer downloads at a higher price point.  And actually, there's nothing wrong with that in itself.

Except, if that's the case, how come they claim the current royalty structure is so "unsustainable"?

ETA: Just remembered I went up a canister level, which accounts for a good bit of my extra income at any rate.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2010, 11:42 by Gannet77 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #435 on: November 06, 2010, 11:39 »
0
But then, that seems to be their strategy - fewer downloads at a higher price point.  And actually, there's nothing wrong with that in itself.
Absolutely not: the model worked for many years and is now called 'macrostock'.

« Reply #436 on: November 06, 2010, 11:46 »
0
But then, that seems to be their strategy - fewer downloads at a higher price point.  And actually, there's nothing wrong with that in itself.
Absolutely not: the model worked for many years and is now called 'macrostock'.

Indeed, I agree - it often seems in the monthly stats threads that people are bemoaning and seeing disaster ahead because they have fewer downloads.  It's the income that counts.

lisafx

« Reply #437 on: November 06, 2010, 11:57 »
0
Don't know if the buyers have bailed en masse but they're not grabbing much of my stuff recently. The first 5 working days of November have been astonishingly low __ sales numbers are 35% lower than the equivalent days in 2009. Fortunately I had 3 EL's this week (very unusual) but without them this week's 'Payout Request' would be at Xmas/New Year levels.

My sales are back to summer levels again on Istock.  I had kind of assumed it was the introduction of all the new Agency files and their being front-loaded in the best match.

Gannet77, thanks for posting those interesting statistics.  Although they aren't firm, for all the reasons you mentioned, they are probably indicative of a general downward trend in DL's.  

Unlike you and Sue, I would definitely see this decline in sales numbers at Istockphoto as a serious problem.   Momentum is moving in the wrong direction, and this is not a the sign of a healthy business.  Sure, it is compensated, for the moment, by higher prices, but those prices can only continue to go up for so long.  Clearly Getty agrees or why would they have felt the need to boost profits by raiding royalty commissions?  

Bottom line is that fewer sales means demand for (Istockphoto's) images is declining.  According to the Law of Supply and Demand, as demand shrinks, prices will have to fall too.  Either that or the business will not survive.    
« Last Edit: November 06, 2010, 12:33 by lisafx »

« Reply #438 on: November 06, 2010, 14:59 »
0
It would be a problem if istock was purely micro. However they seem to moving closer to the macro business model - fewer sales a higher prices, anticipating more money overall. Remains to be seen if its 'sustainable'.

« Reply #439 on: November 06, 2010, 17:32 »
0
It would be a problem if istock was purely micro. However they seem to moving closer to the macro business model - fewer sales a higher prices, anticipating more money overall. Remains to be seen if its 'sustainable'.

For Getty it wasn't particularly 'sustainable'. That's why they had to buy iStock and why iStock continues to be the cash cow. It remains to be seen if it continues to do so, however, with all the constant cash grabs.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #440 on: November 06, 2010, 18:56 »
0

Unlike you and Sue, I would definitely see this decline in sales numbers at Istockphoto as a serious problem.  

I definitely see it as a problem. My October was dire compared to Oct 08 and 09, especially the last week. My files uploaded in the past 18 months are DOA (last week I noticed that two acceptances were well below best match position 100 on their main keyword about 24 hours after appearing in my port).
To be fair, this week has rallied a bit, but overall it is still worrying and unsustainable for many people.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2010, 04:43 by ShadySue »

lisafx

« Reply #441 on: November 06, 2010, 22:24 »
0
I definitely see it as a problem. My October was dire compared to Oct 08 and 09, especially the last week. My files uploaded in the pasgt 18 months are DOA (last week I noticed that two acceptances were well below best match position 100 abut 24 hours after appearing in my port.
To be fair, this week has rallied a bit, but overall it is still worrying and unsustainable for many people.

Oh, sorry Sue.  Looks like I totally misread your post.  Glad your sales are rebounding a bit this week.  Hoping mine will do the same soon...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #442 on: November 07, 2010, 04:42 »
0
[Double post]

alias

« Reply #443 on: November 07, 2010, 07:28 »
0
But then, that seems to be their strategy - fewer downloads at a higher price point.  And actually, there's nothing wrong with that in itself.
Absolutely not: the model worked for many years and is now called 'macrostock'.

Indeed, I agree - it often seems in the monthly stats threads that people are bemoaning and seeing disaster ahead because they have fewer downloads.  It's the income that counts.

Seems logical that not IS Agency and Getty owned content will take an increasing share of these smaller numbers. Getty takes a bigger share on these sales.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #444 on: November 07, 2010, 07:33 »
0
But then, that seems to be their strategy - fewer downloads at a higher price point.  And actually, there's nothing wrong with that in itself.
Absolutely not: the model worked for many years and is now called 'macrostock'.

Indeed, I agree - it often seems in the monthly stats threads that people are bemoaning and seeing disaster ahead because they have fewer downloads.  It's the income that counts.
I was thinking more like that iStock is supposed to be a 'micro'stock, and it seems to be moving towards macro, though with a very confusing model. They should make their intentions clear to contributers. Some contributers are very commited to the micro model, and may be able to make informed decisions if they only had the actual information to do so.

« Reply #445 on: November 07, 2010, 08:40 »
0
But then, that seems to be their strategy - fewer downloads at a higher price point.  And actually, there's nothing wrong with that in itself.
Absolutely not: the model worked for many years and is now called 'macrostock'.

Indeed, I agree - it often seems in the monthly stats threads that people are bemoaning and seeing disaster ahead because they have fewer downloads.  It's the income that counts.

Seems logical that not IS Agency and Getty owned content will take an increasing share of these smaller numbers. Getty takes a bigger share on these sales.
I agree.  All those collections pushing non-exclusive images further down the search are going to reduce earnings.  They should raise commissions to keep it sustainable for non-exclusive contributors ::)

alias

« Reply #446 on: November 07, 2010, 09:59 »
0
Seems logical that not IS Agency and Getty owned content will take an increasing share of these smaller numbers. Getty takes a bigger share on these sales.
I agree.  All those collections pushing non-exclusive images further down the search are going to reduce earnings.  They should raise commissions to keep it sustainable for non-exclusive contributors ::)

More likely to see total percentages paid out in exclusive royalties gradually reduced first - tweaking the model continually in order to produce a result which is equivalent to 20% averaged ?

Best outcome for them could be mid/macro prices, 20% average royalties on microstock model with combined Getty IS class and brand ? So people putting their own work online and inspection by non staffers on piece pay. Maybe the rest of Getty moves towards that ? The two models combined.

Somewhere down the road some version of image exclusivity via some sort of collection based distribution at 20% ? But they have enough going on for now. And something about keywording. Is it possible that keywording might become a service layer ?

lisafx

« Reply #447 on: November 07, 2010, 15:52 »
0

I agree.  All those collections pushing non-exclusive images further down the search are going to reduce earnings.  They should raise commissions to keep it sustainable for non-exclusive contributors ::)

I strongly suspect that a future incarnation of the search engine will have the ability to search individual collections - including the non-exclusive collections.  Buyers want to be able to look within the lowest priced imagery.

Yes, it was said in the forums, back when exclusive image prices went up, that there would never be a way to exclude exclusive images from any search.  But at this point I would not bet money on Istock keeping any of their promises to contributors. 

If buyers want to be able to search the lowest priced images, then Istock is likely to come up with a way for them to do that. 

« Reply #448 on: November 07, 2010, 16:35 »
0

If buyers want to be able to search the lowest priced images, then Istock is likely to come up with a way for them to do that. 

Yeah. They'll send them to ThinkStock. :D

« Reply #449 on: November 07, 2010, 21:48 »
0
...
If buyers want to be able to search the lowest priced images, then Istock is likely to come up with a way for them to do that. 

Agreed.  It's only normal e-commerce.  Practically every other website does it - they have "price" as sorting option, or even "price (low to high)" and "price (high to low)".  Anything else is just going to annoy their customers and drive them away.

Unless it is actually their devious plan to drive the company into the ground (and I can't see how it could be) then they're going to have to give in and do this.  They cannot offer similar-looking, but (vastly) different-priced goods for sale without this feature.  Amazon does it, expedia does it, and Istock had darn well better do it unless they want to look like a bunch of fools.

The existence of this feature and the way that customers use it might also force them to think hard about pricing.  Is run-of-the-mill stock imagery really worth many times more than what professional but non-exclusive artists have produced, just because it was bought in bulk from god-knows-where and stamped with an "agency collection" seal of approval?  Their customers will let them know pretty quickly, as soon as they have the means to differentiate.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
17301 Views
Last post October 23, 2010, 14:12
by gbalex
18 Replies
5820 Views
Last post November 24, 2011, 15:34
by lagereek
162 Replies
33345 Views
Last post May 14, 2012, 10:27
by jbryson
20 Replies
7327 Views
Last post February 14, 2013, 17:41
by Poncke
9 Replies
4679 Views
Last post January 15, 2014, 19:56
by djpadavona

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors