For the last two years I have been tracking the downloads and number of images in the collection of 431 of iStock�s leading contributors. I�ve been tracking about half of them since 2009. This story (http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/tracking-istock-downloads) is available for everyone�s review free of charge and explains the process I went through to gather this data. I believe these contributors represent about one-third of iStock�s total downloads since the company was established.

Of the total number of contributors 316 are represented exclusively by iStock and only 125 are non-exclusive. It will surprise no one that there has been a significant decline in downloads on average, but it is interesting to see that a few contributors are still doing very well despite the fact that many are seeing significant declines.

Of this group 116 (27%) are illustrators, 214 or about half only do photography and the rest I have classified as Photographer/Illustrators. This last group has a lot of images in their portfolios that are clearly illustration, or heavily digitally manipulated, and some pretty straight photography. My guess is that many in this PI group earn their living primarily as graphic designers. They shoot some of their own photographs, and do photography on the side. They also recycle a lot of the illustration work they have done on assignments for clients. This group may also include some who are primarily photographers, but who have an expertise in digital manipulation.

One of the interesting things is that on average the pure photographers have about 4 times as many images in their portfolios as the other two groups. The PIs average a little more than the Illustrators who have the fewest.  On average Illustrators have 41.58 downloads per image in their portfolios, PIs have 29.82 downloads per image and Photographers only have an average of 21.64 images per download. The Photographer group represents about 55% of all downloads.

Another interesting fact is that more images don�t necessarily result in more sales. Some of the contributors that have added the most images to their collections in the last two years have seen the slowest growth in downloads. Only about half of the 431 contributors � and remember they are among iStock�s most successful � have grown their portfolios by more than 10% in the last two years. And 94 of the 431, or 22% of these contributors have added no new images to their collections in the last two or they have reduced the size of their portfolios. Many of this 22% have seen greater growth in downloads in the two-year period than some who have been adding lots of images.

A detailed analysis of all this is available in 4 stories on Selling-Stock.com. Each story allows you to easily compare numbers and portfolios of individual creators in order to enable readers to get a more granular understanding than just the averages of what has been happening.

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/istock-downloads-first-half-2014

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/three-categories-of-image-creators

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/istock-more-images-does-not-increase-sales

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/is-rm-the-only-place-to-find-great-pictures

There is a modest fee for reading these stories because a lot of work was involved in gathering the data.

A detailed analysis of all this is available in 4 stories on Selling-Stock.com. Each story allows you to easily compare numbers and portfolios of individual creators in order to enable readers to get a more granular understanding than just the averages of what has been happening.

 There is a modest fee for reading these stories because a lot of work was involved in gathering the data.

I didn't read your articles but sounds like you are posting these peoples stats and portfolio info by name.  Did you get therir permissions to do this?  Seems a bit of an invasion of privacy.

The comparison stuff about overall IS sales could be just as useful without naming names I think.

Excuse me if I am misunderstanding and you are not publicly posting other peoples private info so you can make money from it.

I thinks trends at IS are pretty obvious to anyone who submits there. 

Well, it isn't private incur action.  It's public.

I was wondering what that meant too.

Quote from: john_woodcock on July 13, 2014, 01:33

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 11, 2014, 22:19

Well, it isn't private incur action.  It's public.

I was wondering what that meant too.

It means my fingers are too big for my phone.  It isn't private "information".

LOL.   Been there.  But you don't have any problem with making it easier to copy?  Info may not be totally private but was not all in one place.  As Pickerell said it took much research to collect this amount of other peoples business.  Before at least copyers had to do there own research.

For the last two years I ............

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/istock-downloads-first-half-2014

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/three-categories-of-image-creators

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/istock-more-images-does-not-increase-sales

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/is-rm-the-only-place-to-find-great-pictures

There is a modest fee for reading these stories because a lot of work was involved in gathering the data.

This links request sign up information?!? Is this some kind of scam or other kind of milking money for nothing...
Looks like Click here to win Ferrari, or Enlarge you Pns...

Who cares about istock anymore? Is that that scam? company from canada who offers less then 20%? Why even discuss it in a serious and honorable environment as MSG? They lied? They drove down royalties? Why should anybody care? And why should we care about those who are still in?

I always think engaging brain before opening mouth is a good policy. You should try it.