Author Topic: Downloads At iStock 12% Lower Than 2012 (Read 32119 times)

Pickerell · « **on:** January 06, 2014, 16:58 »

Based on the downloads of 420 of iStock’s most productive contributors with a combined total of at least 50,777,000 downloads, the number of downloads in 2013 were down about 12% compared to 2012. This group of contributors have approximately one-third* of all iStock downloads since the company’s founding,

Since early in 2009 I have been tracking downloads (http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/downloads-at-istock-56-lower-than-2010) of 192 of iStockphoto’s most productive contributors. At the end of 2011, I added 228 additional contributors to my tracking list for a total of 420. All the people on this list have more than 45,000 downloads and 171 of them have more than 100,000 total downloads.

At the end of 2012 this group had minimum total downloads of 47,617,000. This was up a minimum of 3,780,000 from 43,837,000 at the end of 2011. Given the way iStock reports downloads the group had a possible maximum of 5,927,000 during 2012. For 2013 the minimum downloads were 3,160,000 and the maximum 5,388,000.

Assuming that some contributors has just passed the minimum download number reported and others were about to reach the maximum and go to the next higher level, I averaged the high and low number for each year. The average downloads for 2013 is 4,853,500 and for 2013 it is 4,274,000. Thus, the average downloads in 2013 is about 12% lower than 2012. It should also be noted that downloads declined 46% in 2012 compared to 2011. (http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/downloads-at-istock-56-lower-than-2010)

In July iStock launched a half-price promotion (http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/istockphoto-cuts-prices) and cut the price of all the content from its non-exclusive contributors in half in the hopes of generating more downloads. Simultaneously, they adjusted the search-return-order in a way that favored their higher priced exclusive collections that remained at the same price. At that time it was reported that 70% of all iStock sales were for exclusive images. After the end of the 3rd quarter there were reports that 75% of all downloads were for exclusive images.

While lowering the price of non-exclusive images did not seem to increase sales overall, gross revenue for iStock may not have declined due to the higher percentage of exclusive sales.

*As of January 2, 2012 the 38,163 contributors iStockcharts was tracking had a combined minimum total of 114,875,519 downloads since the founding of iStock. These contributors owned over 90% of all the images on iStock. Given the weak sales in the last two years, I believe total iStock downloads are below 150 million.

Individual trend data can be found at (http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/downloads-at-istock-12-lower-than-2012).

gostwyck · « **Reply #1 on:** January 06, 2014, 17:23 »

^^^ Nice work Jim.

It all ok though __ IS have just increased prices of both credits and also non-Main collection images to compensate.

It's really good business practice that. Whenever people are buying less of your product ... it can only be because it is too cheap ... therefore a price increase is essential to bring those buyers back. I think that's how it works anyway.

Ron · « **Reply #2 on:** January 06, 2014, 17:26 »

Quote from: gostwyck on January 06, 2014, 17:23

^^^ Nice work Jim.

It all ok though __ IS have just increased prices of both credits and also non-Main collection images to compensate.

It's really good business practice that. Whenever people are buying less of your product ... it can only be because it is too cheap ... therefore a price increase is essential to bring those buyers back. I think that's how it works anyway.

How does that work with the 'we halved our pricing forever marketing'? They halved their prices and now they raised them again? Is that correct?

ShadySue · « **Reply #3 on:** January 06, 2014, 17:35 »

Quote from: Ron on January 06, 2014, 17:26

Quote from: gostwyck on January 06, 2014, 17:23
^^^ Nice work Jim.

It all ok though __ IS have just increased prices of both credits and also non-Main collection images to compensate.

It's really good business practice that. Whenever people are buying less of your product ... it can only be because it is too cheap ... therefore a price increase is essential to bring those buyers back. I think that's how it works anyway.
How does that work with the 'we halved our pricing forever marketing'? They halved their prices and now they raised them again? Is that correct?

No, They increased the prices of exclusive files (other than Exclusive Main files).
So they have raised even ordinary Exclusive files to a crazy level above Main files.

They really hate exclusives and will do anything to hack them off.
(And they have made it very difficult to know which files are indie and which aren't, presumably to hide the fact that lots of indie files are now very high in certain searches - it's a real hassle to have to click on each file to check if it's indie or exclusive. They're not trying to highlight their exclusive files at all.

Maybe they at least realised that files marked 'only from iStock' which weren't is a legal minefield.

pancaketom · « **Reply #4 on:** January 06, 2014, 17:40 »

My sales at IS are down over 40%. For a more detailed analysis you can pay me some money.

Ron · « **Reply #5 on:** January 06, 2014, 17:51 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 06, 2014, 17:35

Quote from: Ron on January 06, 2014, 17:26
Quote from: gostwyck on January 06, 2014, 17:23
^^^ Nice work Jim.

It all ok though __ IS have just increased prices of both credits and also non-Main collection images to compensate.

It's really good business practice that. Whenever people are buying less of your product ... it can only be because it is too cheap ... therefore a price increase is essential to bring those buyers back. I think that's how it works anyway.
How does that work with the 'we halved our pricing forever marketing'? They halved their prices and now they raised them again? Is that correct?

No, They increased the prices of exclusive files (other than Exclusive Main files).
So they have raised even ordinary Exclusive files to a crazy level above Main files.

They really hate exclusives and will do anything to hack them off.
(And they have made it very difficult to know which files are indie and which aren't, presumably to hide the fact that lots of indie files are now very high in certain searches - it's a real hassle to have to click on each file to check if it's indie or exclusive. They're not trying to highlight their exclusive files at all.

Maybe they at least realised that files marked 'only from iStock' which weren't is a legal minefield.

Thanks.

The report from Jim says the sales of Excl files went up from 70 to 75%. Looks like they love excl files as they make the most money of off them and by increasing pricing they make even more. There is no decline in excl files being DLed

bunhill · « **Reply #6 on:** January 06, 2014, 17:51 »

1. The only thing that you can conclude from guessing "the downloads of 420 of iStock’s most productive contributors" taken in isolation is how well those contributors might be performing as a group. Unless you can demonstrate that those 420 are, today, a representative sample.

2. Here you write:

Quote from: Pickerell on January 06, 2014, 16:58

It should also be noted that downloads declined 46% in 2012 compared to 2011. (http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/downloads-at-istock-56-lower-than-2010)

What you previously wrote was that:

Quote

The number of downloads from iStockphoto may have declined by 46% in 2012 compared to 2011 and almost 56% since 2010.

I am curious how it went from previously being a maybe to now being a definite ?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #7 on:** January 06, 2014, 17:56 »

The only thing I would want to know more about is whether any of the dump truck loads of Getty content foisted off on istock.com are included in the contributors that Jim Pickerell tracks. I assume they're not.

Those numbers have been significant enough, I would think, to have taken internal market share away from the "real" istock exclusives (i.e. not Getty, not Yuri exclusives) and thus account for part of the drop. I realize that the people who really know won't say, but it certainly seems plausible that iStock downloads are lower - given so many people who have reported that for several years. That's usually followed with a note that their income is up (and possibly another note that their portfolio grew by more than the increase in their income...).

Given my year didn't include much uploading and SS really grew over last year in money sales, I can't imagine where else that growth would have come from other than losses by the previous top dog(s).

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #8 on:** January 06, 2014, 18:50 »

Did you take me out of the equation?

loop · « **Reply #9 on:** January 06, 2014, 19:05 »

My number of downloads lowered clearly in 2013. Price increases (including all my bestseller being pushed to S+) made up for that, but that's another history. This January has begun weak, even considering that it's the beggining of January.

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** January 06, 2014, 19:06 »

Quote from: Ron on January 06, 2014, 17:51

There is no decline in excl files being DLed

I have no idea how you can say that.
Most exclusives (who report) are reporting big decreases in downloads.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #11 on:** January 06, 2014, 20:31 »

Quote from: Pickerell on January 06, 2014, 16:58

At that time it was reported that 70% of all iStock sales were for exclusive images. After the end of the 3rd quarter there were reports that 75% of all downloads were for exclusive images.

While lowering the price of non-exclusive images did not seem to increase sales overall, gross revenue for iStock may not have declined due to the higher percentage of exclusive sales.

Hard to say. If DLs dropped by 12% overall, the relative percentage of exclusive DLs vs. indie DLs may have risen, but the real number of DLs in both categories may have fallen. So it's possible iStock's gross revenue fell as well.

That might also explain why, though the percentage of exclusive DLs rose, so many exclusives are reporting a drop in their sales. It's possible for both things to happen simultaneously.

asiseeit · « **Reply #12 on:** January 06, 2014, 20:39 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on January 06, 2014, 18:50

Did you take me out of the equation?

You're not on the list anymore so I guess he removed you altogether. There also doesn't seem to be any adjustment for yuri and clan's account change, or the account their legacy photos were moved to. I think that could change the data quite a bit.

KB · « **Reply #13 on:** January 06, 2014, 22:53 »

Being a small (exclusive) contributor, my data point is meaningless. But my experience is all that I have to go by. My DLs were down 38% in 2013 over 2012. Earnings (exclusive of Getty) were down far less (just a couple of percent). My port size increased about 17%.

However, based on the last few months, I expect 2014 to be far, far more grim.

Ron · « **Reply #14 on:** January 07, 2014, 04:57 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 06, 2014, 19:06

Quote from: Ron on January 06, 2014, 17:51
There is no decline in excl files being DLed
I have no idea how you can say that.
Most exclusives (who report) are reporting big decreases in downloads.

Its in the OP

Quote

At that time it was reported that 70% of all iStock sales were for exclusive images. After the end of the 3rd quarter there were reports that 75% of all downloads were for exclusive images.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #15 on:** January 07, 2014, 05:32 »

Quote from: Ron on January 07, 2014, 04:57

Quote from: ShadySue on January 06, 2014, 19:06
Quote from: Ron on January 06, 2014, 17:51
There is no decline in excl files being DLed
I have no idea how you can say that.
Most exclusives (who report) are reporting big decreases in downloads.

Its in the OP
Quote
At that time it was reported that 70% of all iStock sales were for exclusive images. After the end of the 3rd quarter there were reports that 75% of all downloads were for exclusive images.

Without knowing where "it was reported", by whom and on what basis I regard this as a very weak platform to draw any conclusions form. It "was also reported" (here) that inde sales rose and exclusive sales fell after the price hike.

The 12% drop in dls is based on equally shaky assumptions: The great bulk of contributors with more than 50,000 dls are exclusives, so any systematic benefit or hit that exclusives have taken will skew the figures.

Note that downloads for exclusives have gone up from 70% to 75% of all dls (an increase of 7%), while dls for the mostly-exclusive top 420 contributors have fallen by 12%. If gaining an extra 7% share of the dls still leaves you down 12%, then it suggests that overall dls are down about 20%, with the bulk of the burden falling on the independents who should, I suppose, be down something like 33% (they were getting 30% of all dls, now they get 25% - a 16% decrease - of a pot that is 20% smaller, so instead of 30% of 100% they are getting 25% of 80%, which is a fall from 30% to 20% which is 33% overall).

The trouble is that far from seeing a 33% fall in my dls, I am seeing a 50% increase in dls (and I'm one of those among Jim's 440). Where I am seeing a 30% fall is in my earnings.

Now if "reports had said" that exclusives used to get 70% of the cash generated and were now getting 75% (of a much smaller pot) that would make some sense. But with downloads it doesn't seem to make any sense at all. It runs contrary to what just about everybody here from both sides - inde and exclusive - has said about the impact of the new pricing on sales.

bunhill · « **Reply #16 on:** January 07, 2014, 06:03 »

Quote from: Ron on January 07, 2014, 04:57

Its in the OP
Quote
At that time it was reported that 70% of all iStock sales were for exclusive images. After the end of the 3rd quarter there were reports that 75% of all downloads were for exclusive images.

It was reported by Jim but did anyone else report that ? From what I can work out nobody else made that extrapolation from the Moody's reports. And looking back I do not see it either. I think Jim is remembering his own reporting.

Except that Jim seems to be mis-reporting his own reporting. What he actually reported (and posted here) related to revenues and not to sales. At the time he said that Getty had told this to the debt investors. Since none of them are talking the origin of that figure remains unclear - it may very well be just another extrapolation. It was reported.

For more information send me money.

ETA: I see Baldrick said some of the same things whilst I was taking out the potentially libellous bits of this post.

Ron · « **Reply #17 on:** January 07, 2014, 06:15 »

Note to self: dont quote the OP.

Guys, I just took a quote from the OP, if that report is incorrect, maybe its best to address the OP directly. Maybe my mistake was to take the OP for granted.

The OP got 7 votes up and Joe got 5 votes up. You picked holes in the report, and others think its all good. The opinions about the OP look divided and I dont want to get caught up in the middle.

Lessons learned.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #18 on:** January 07, 2014, 08:40 »

I wasn't criticising you, Ron, but your post answered the question of where the "report" had been referred to, which made a good starting point for my post.

Ron · « **Reply #19 on:** January 07, 2014, 08:50 »

I know Paul, but I have no reply to your analyses.

Pixart · « **Reply #20 on:** January 07, 2014, 12:37 »

Gosh, my downloads are down 100% from last year this time

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #21 on:** January 07, 2014, 13:12 »

Quote from: pancaketom on January 06, 2014, 17:40

My sales at IS are down over 40%. For a more detailed analysis you can pay me some money.

Now THAT was funny!

Pickerell · « **Reply #22 on:** January 07, 2014, 13:33 »

Jo Ann:

Most of my original list came from people who were at the top of the iStockcharts list when they were still publishing their numbers. I have certainly missed those who were below 45,000 downloads two years ago and have had a dramatic rise in downloads since then. I doubt if I have any of the people whose collections were moved from Getty Images to iStock. If you want to see exactly who was included you can go to my site at http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/downloads-at-istock-12-lower-than-2012

Sean

I did not include you because I didn’t have a full two years of data on you. Hope you are making up for the iStock loss with Stocksy sales.

To All.

The 70% and 75% came from investors considering investing in Getty debt. Maybe they were blowing smoke at me. Maybe they have another agenda. Take it for what is worth.

bunhill · « **Reply #23 on:** January 07, 2014, 14:30 »

Quote from: Pickerell on January 07, 2014, 13:33

The 70% and 75% came from investors considering investing in Getty debt.

It seems almost incredible that corporate investors at that level would would be sharing inside gossip with a blogger whilst, presumably, under NDA. But okay.

Straight question: How did it go from being 70% of revenue to being 70% of sales ? Previously you said revenue. Now you are saying sales.

gostwyck · « **Reply #24 on:** January 07, 2014, 15:31 »

Quote from: bunhill on January 07, 2014, 14:30

Quote from: Pickerell on January 07, 2014, 13:33
The 70% and 75% came from investors considering investing in Getty debt.

It seems almost incredible that corporate investors at that level would would be sharing inside gossip with a blogger whilst, presumably, under NDA. But okay.

Straight question: How did it go from being 70% of revenue to being 70% of sales ? Previously you said revenue. Now you are saying sales.

Revenue and sales are the same thing for Getty aren't they?

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Downloads At iStock 12% Lower Than 2012 (Read 32119 times)

Pickerell

gostwyck

Ron

ShadySue

pancaketom

Ron

bunhill

Jo Ann Snover

Sean Locke Photography

loop

ShadySue

Shelma1

asiseeit

KB

Ron

BaldricksTrousers

bunhill

Ron

BaldricksTrousers

Ron

Pixart

Tryingmybest

Pickerell

bunhill

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors