Author Topic: End of Year IS review Statistics (Read 20291 times)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #25 on:** December 30, 2011, 17:32 »

we all have different earnings/sales etc etc of course there will be always some going up and other down (could be best match, new uploads, buyers bailing, etc etc)

THE real thing is that IS had 15% less downloads comparing to 2010 which is quite significant, punishing some top 100 contributors (exc/ind) as we all read everyday on this forum)

we are talking about 3.3M downloads

my very small numbers show grow but who am I to talk about it, I am just looking at my own numbers and overall numbers at IS

2009: 48 downloads
2010: 336 downloads (1403 credits)
2011: 633 downloads (3536 credits)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #26 on:** December 30, 2011, 17:34 »

Quote from: kelby on December 30, 2011, 17:20

esclusive contributor : 5872

less 99 now

KB · « **Reply #27 on:** December 30, 2011, 18:02 »

Some really helpful numbers here, thanks.

15% loss of sales year over year is huge. As others have said, sure they likely made more $ (thanks in large part to the commissions cuts and the heavy Vetta/Agency best match weighing for about half of the year), but this is far less sustainable than how they were doing before the canister / RC mess began.

Unfortunately, H&F may not be that bothered by it, since what they probably care most about is increasing margins and income (gross and net). A 15% drop in downloads probably wasn't enough to negatively impact net income, due to the large increase in margins from the commission cuts. Gross might have dropped, though, since I don't think prices went up that much year over year (unless the overall sales mix increased enough in favor of Vetta & Agency files -- maybe it did).

My point is, they will have not be able to show good numbers next year, unless they either increase sales volume or price enough, or cut overall commissions again (by raising the RC target levels). So if they are planning on unloading Getty, they might be doing it sooner rather than later.

I noticed H&F's co-founder died earlier this month. I have no other comment on that.

Quote from: kelby on December 30, 2011, 17:20

at the start of the year 2011 :

my data _

blackdiamond : 37
diamond : 774
gold : 1090
silver : 3180
bronze : 8064
base : 23079

total contributor : 36764 (less than the real effective number about 85000 now)
esclusive contributor : 5872
total files : 7479201

This is the "unsustainable" part that H&F was worried about. The top contributors (Diamonds of both colors) increased over 18% this year. It was that trend that I'm sure lead to their self-defeating commission structure change. Gold +14%, Silver +14%, Bronze +19%.

A 1.6% drop in exclusive contributors, and only a 3.8% increase in total contributors. I bet those numbers will be much different one year from now.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #28 on:** December 30, 2011, 18:34 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 17:11

Even if they have succeeded in pushing customers into paying more per download to compensate for falling sales, is it possible to imagine that next year they can repeat the trick?

And then do the same the next year and the one after?

This is where it is correct to use the word "unsustainable". You cannot endlessly increase prices to outpace a fall in sales, though maybe hiding the independent content is part of an attempt to do that.

I don't imagine they can repeat the trick year after year, no; but then, I didn't expect them to do it this year. After last years changes I'd really expected to be down in income this year, and that I would probably be dropping my crown!

But they aren't "pushing customers into paying more to compensate for falling sales"; the falling sales are a consequence of them raising prices, and I am sure they anticipated it.

What they do want to do is to find the price point which results in maximum income (as indeed do we all, surely?), and that price point is not going to coincide with maximum sales. Whether or not they have managed it, and if so will manage to maintain it, remains to be seen...

Karimala · « **Reply #29 on:** December 30, 2011, 18:54 »

Can't view my IS only downloads numbers as 2010 and 2011 both read zero, but in terms of revenue, I'm down 30% from last year despite my royalty percentage dropping "only" 20%. Redeemed credits are down 19%. When including PP downloads, my number of downloads decreased by only 9.

Phadrea · « **Reply #30 on:** December 31, 2011, 06:30 »

This terrible, slow month (which should be a good one) is set to be the worst in over 2 years. So glad I am dropping my crown in a few days. I am down over $2238 this year compared to last.

ShadySue · « **Reply #31 on:** December 31, 2011, 06:44 »

Hmmm, it seems that they have gone well over 10M files without as much as a squeak:
Total files 10051699
Waiting approval 41475
Too unsustainable to even make a triumphant post about it.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #32 on:** December 31, 2011, 06:53 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on December 30, 2011, 18:34

What they do want to do is to find the price point which results in maximum income (as indeed do we all, surely?), and that price point is not going to coincide with maximum sales. Whether or not they have managed it, and if so will manage to maintain it, remains to be seen...

Fair point, though it is a terribly dangerous game for them to play because the time-lag involved in customers using up existing credits or making a policy decision to change agencies means that the data they get about the impact of changes is likely to lag the change by several months. A fatal mistake could take six months to be recognised by which time a lot of irreversible decisions could have been made (especially around year-end/financial year-end, when budgets and spending decisions are most likely to be reviewed by the larger customers who seem to be iStock's chosen target now).

Getting paid for credit packs up front, long before the last of them will be used, was a wonderful benefit for a growing company that wasn't pushing against any kind of customer resistance. The same factor becomes a considerable handicap when trying to walk a tightrope between raising prices and losing sales.

As far as I know, no midstock agency has established itself yet. Istock seems to be trying to fill that role.

gostwyck · « **Reply #33 on:** December 31, 2011, 07:07 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 31, 2011, 06:53

Fair point, though it is a terribly dangerous game for them to play because the time-lag involved in customers using up existing credits or making a policy decision to change agencies means that the data they get about the impact of changes is likely to lag the change by several months. A fatal mistake could take six months to be recognised by which time a lot of irreversible decisions could have been made (especially around year-end/financial year-end, when budgets and spending decisions are most likely to be reviewed by the larger customers who seem to be iStock's chosen target now).

Getting paid for credit packs up front, long before the last of them will be used, was a wonderful benefit for a growing company that wasn't pushing against any kind of customer resistance. The same factor becomes a considerable handicap when trying to walk a tightrope between raising customers and losing sales.

As far as I know, no midstock agency has established itself yet. Istock seems to be trying to fill that role.

I'd agree. I reckon Istock probably hit the 'sweet spot' about the time that they first introduced higher-priced exclusive images, which was justifiable, and the Vetta collection (the latter being strictly limited to 1% of the library). Pretty much every price increase and new 'collection' they've done since has been detrimental IMHO.

It's ironic that Istock credit themselves with inventing 'microstock' ... and then completely forgot the foundations that their business was built upon. Istock was the alternative to the over-priced agencies. Now, in many of their customers' eyes, they are the over-priced agency.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #34 on:** December 31, 2011, 07:22 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2011, 06:44

Total files 10051699

Hoorayyyyy!!

KB · « **Reply #35 on:** December 31, 2011, 11:58 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 31, 2011, 07:22

Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2011, 06:44
Total files 10051699

Hoorayyyyy!!

Is that total for photos only, or does it include all media types?

Karimala · « **Reply #36 on:** December 31, 2011, 12:37 »

Quote from: KB on December 31, 2011, 11:58

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 31, 2011, 07:22
Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2011, 06:44
Total files 10051699

Hoorayyyyy!!
Is that total for photos only, or does it include all media types?

And does it include all the photos Getty is dumping into IS? Or is this number just for IS contributors' images?

ShadySue · « **Reply #37 on:** December 31, 2011, 12:45 »

Quote from: Karimala on December 31, 2011, 12:37

Quote from: KB on December 31, 2011, 11:58
Quote from: luissantos84 on December 31, 2011, 07:22
Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2011, 06:44
Total files 10051699

Hoorayyyyy!!
Is that total for photos only, or does it include all media types?

And does it include all the photos Getty is dumping into IS? Or is this number just for IS contributors' images?

All files available on iStockphoto, I'd guess.

Karimala · « **Reply #38 on:** December 31, 2011, 13:35 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2011, 12:45

Quote from: Karimala on December 31, 2011, 12:37
Quote from: KB on December 31, 2011, 11:58
Quote from: luissantos84 on December 31, 2011, 07:22
Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2011, 06:44
Total files 10,051,699

Hoorayyyyy!!
Is that total for photos only, or does it include all media types?

And does it include all the photos Getty is dumping into IS? Or is this number just for IS contributors' images?

All files available on iStockphoto, I'd guess.

I ask because Shutterstock has 17,419,551 files online (which probably includes video). That's a huge difference, especially when considering at IS I earn 1/3 of what I earn at SS!

RacePhoto · « **Reply #39 on:** January 13, 2012, 10:02 »

Just a comment and a small bump for the Stats thread.

I looked at 2011 vs 2010 for me. And I do have a small increase in photos for 2011 over 2010. This is with the new percentages and what appears to be a boost in ThinkStock sales while IS sales dropped. Consider the source, but I don't think that having the same images up for a year would change this much for customer demands?

Income down 56%
Downloads down 49%

That's a one year 20010 compared to 2011. I'd be forced to say, something is changing here?

scottdunlap · « **Reply #40 on:** January 13, 2012, 10:28 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 17:11

Even if they have succeeded in pushing customers into paying more per download to compensate for falling sales, is it possible to imagine that next year they can repeat the trick?

And then do the same the next year and the one after?

This is where it is correct to use the word "unsustainable". You cannot endlessly increase prices to outpace a fall in sales, though maybe hiding the independent content is part of an attempt to do that.

I see it the opposite way. Increasing prices are the cause of falling sales. But I could care less about download numbers if my overall revenue is up...I wish we had some info on whether it's up or down site-wide.

wut · « **Reply #41 on:** January 13, 2012, 10:32 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 31, 2011, 06:53

As far as I know, no midstock agency has established itself yet. Istock seems to be trying to fill that role.

What is Alamy then?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #42 on:** January 13, 2012, 10:50 »

Quote from: scottdunlap on January 13, 2012, 10:28

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 30, 2011, 17:11
Even if they have succeeded in pushing customers into paying more per download to compensate for falling sales, is it possible to imagine that next year they can repeat the trick?

And then do the same the next year and the one after?

This is where it is correct to use the word "unsustainable". You cannot endlessly increase prices to outpace a fall in sales, though maybe hiding the independent content is part of an attempt to do that.

I see it the opposite way. Increasing prices are the cause of falling sales. But I could care less about download numbers if my overall revenue is up...I wish we had some info on whether it's up or down site-wide.

What you would like to see - given a variety of collections at a variety of price points - is that you keep the volume of business on the items that are at the lower prices and only have lower volumes on the high price collections (Vetta, Agency, exclusive+). You'd aim to grow the business overall by adding buyers for the higher priced content, not losing existing buyers in the process.

The problem, IMO, is that iStock managed to lower the volume of sales on the lower priced items because of the way they were pushing the higher priced ones. That's not growing the business. The temptation to "solve" the problem by pushing more of the higher priced stuff just accelerates the spin.

The fact that the site is frequently not working as it should just exacerbates the problems - frustrated buyers may find that the final straw in deciding to shop multiple places or leave when their credits are used. I saw another buyer post in the iStock forums this week, deleted not long after it appeared, where they said they were going to use up their credits and shop elsewhere thereafter. I don't spend much time in the iStock forums so it was just happenstance I saw it.

I think it's tempting for those whose income is currently OK at iStock to dismiss the reports of others (such as in the Dec sales thread and the 2011 sales thread) about drastically falling sales. Neither iStock or Getty is going to share any real information with contributors, so we inevitably have to read things into the data we can gather. If H&F is looking for growth in income, there's only so long iStock can deliver by cutting contributor payouts to a portion of their suppliers and dumping wholly owned content from Getty onto the site.

scottdunlap · « **Reply #43 on:** January 13, 2012, 11:44 »

Quote from: jsnover on January 13, 2012, 10:50

I think it's tempting for those whose income is currently OK at iStock to dismiss the reports of others (such as in the Dec sales thread and the 2011 sales thread) about drastically falling sales. Neither iStock or Getty is going to share any real information with contributors, so we inevitably have to read things into the data we can gather. If H&F is looking for growth in income, there's only so long iStock can deliver by cutting contributor payouts to a portion of their suppliers and dumping wholly owned content from Getty onto the site.

I think I am pretty level-headed and I am not dismissing the reports of others. I come here to keep up on trends so I'm not surprised down the road. I'm listening to the reports of falling sales and factoring it in. The trend doesn't look good. But on the flip side, there's a lot of animosity towards iStock on this forum, some justified, but as a result those folks are extra vocal and may be making things seem worse than they actually are. Lagereek's posts are a good example. I especially liked when he said that a monkey playing with himself in the bush could do better than their programmers...I guess what I'm saying is I take some things with a grain of salt. There are still people doing well there, for example last year was my best at iStock, and I've been there 6 years. Maybe I've had some best match luck to help out, who knows?

mtilghma · « **Reply #44 on:** January 13, 2012, 12:51 »

Quote from: KB on December 30, 2011, 18:02

Quote from: kelby on December 30, 2011, 17:20
at the start of the year 2011 :

my data _

blackdiamond : 37
diamond : 774
gold : 1090
silver : 3180
bronze : 8064
base : 23079

total contributor : 36764 (less than the real effective number about 85000 now)
esclusive contributor : 5872
total files : 7479201

This is the "unsustainable" part that H&F was worried about. The top contributors (Diamonds of both colors) increased over 18% this year. It was that trend that I'm sure lead to their self-defeating commission structure change. Gold +14%, Silver +14%, Bronze +19%.

If H&F saw that trend, though, and worried about an unsustainable future, rather than an unsustainable present, they could/should have stuck to their "grandfathered canister" promise

mtilghma · « **Reply #45 on:** January 13, 2012, 12:53 »

off topic: Scott I just looked at your iStock port. >110000 dl's on 390 files is one of the most impressive things I've seen in a while. Congrats.

scottdunlap · « **Reply #46 on:** January 13, 2012, 13:12 »

Quote from: mtilghma on January 13, 2012, 12:53

off topic: Scott I just looked at your iStock port. >110000 dl's on 390 files is one of the most impressive things I've seen in a while. Congrats.

Thanks Matt. Designing icons has become a sort of obsession for me. I just checked out your photos... you have some amazing shots. I've always admired landscape photographers like you. I always think to myself "I could do that," then always come up short!

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #47 on:** January 13, 2012, 13:31 »

Quote from: mtilghma on January 13, 2012, 12:53

off topic: Scott I just looked at your iStock port. >110000 dl's on 390 files is one of the most impressive things I've seen in a while. Congrats.

Yes, even more impressive is that there are photos and not just illustrations. Nice work.

scottdunlap · « **Reply #48 on:** January 13, 2012, 13:51 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 13, 2012, 13:31

Quote from: mtilghma on January 13, 2012, 12:53
off topic: Scott I just looked at your iStock port. >110000 dl's on 390 files is one of the most impressive things I've seen in a while. Congrats.

Yes, even more impressive is that there are photos and not just illustrations. Nice work.

Thanks Paulie. I haven't uploaded photos for a good while, and last year's sales reflect it. I dropped way down to 25%. I am probably going to drop photo exclusivity as a result.

sodafish · « **Reply #49 on:** January 13, 2012, 14:44 »

Quote from: scottdunlap on January 13, 2012, 11:44

Quote from: jsnover on January 13, 2012, 10:50

I think it's tempting for those whose income is currently OK at iStock to dismiss the reports of others (such as in the Dec sales thread and the 2011 sales thread) about drastically falling sales. Neither iStock or Getty is going to share any real information with contributors, so we inevitably have to read things into the data we can gather. If H&F is looking for growth in income, there's only so long iStock can deliver by cutting contributor payouts to a portion of their suppliers and dumping wholly owned content from Getty onto the site.

I think I am pretty level-headed and I am not dismissing the reports of others. I come here to keep up on trends so I'm not surprised down the road. I'm listening to the reports of falling sales and factoring it in. The trend doesn't look good. But on the flip side, there's a lot of animosity towards iStock on this forum, some justified, but as a result those folks are extra vocal and may be making things seem worse than they actually are. Lagereek's posts are a good example. I especially liked when he said that a monkey playing with himself in the bush could do better than their programmers...I guess what I'm saying is I take some things with a grain of salt. There are still people doing well there, for example last year was my best at iStock, and I've been there 6 years. Maybe I've had some best match luck to help out, who knows?

I don't disagree with you Scott, there indeed can be a very negative sentiment regarding iStock here, and it's not always completely objective. But if I'm correct you somehow doubled your icon portfolio during the last year, so you should take that into account for the fact you had a good year. The question is, was it good enough for having twice as much work for sale. I also hope iStock (and somehow even believe that) is just having a little break before rising again, but we should also be realistic somehow. A lot of things have happened over there, and I can't remember many of them were good news.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: End of Year IS review Statistics (Read 20291 times)

luissantos84

luissantos84

KB

Gannet77

Karimala

Phadrea

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

gostwyck

luissantos84

KB

Karimala

ShadySue

Karimala

RacePhoto

scottdunlap

wut

Jo Ann Snover

scottdunlap

mtilghma

mtilghma

scottdunlap

PaulieWalnuts

scottdunlap

sodafish

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors