Author Topic: Evaluating Exclusivity at Istock - Crunching the Numbers (Read 38554 times)

sharpshot · « **Reply #50 on:** February 08, 2010, 13:47 »

And after they make a profitable sale, the new owners will want to make more profit. It is a shame we can't get together and buy them, I would put in $5

macrosaur · « **Reply #51 on:** February 08, 2010, 14:28 »

Quote from: massman on February 08, 2010, 12:37

F&H just want to pump up the balance sheet ready for a profitable sale, why would they care about contributors?

Who can blame them ?

Their choice is about either screwing new contributors getting 80% of their sales or
screwing their exclusives getting 60% of their sales but also selling their high res files
at 0.25$ via ThinkStock.

However we turn the cards on the table it's a win-win scenario... for Getty.

CofkoCof · « **Reply #52 on:** April 13, 2010, 15:05 »

With the introduction of E+ the crown looks more and more tempting, even though SS has always been my number 1. I did a similar calculation (March + April earnings) and the increase for me would be 50% for the increased prices, 50% for the cannister (I think I'll be able to reach silver before the change) which totals in a 2.25x increase (just what gostwyks number is for silver cannisters). That gets me to about 70% of my current earnings. The factors that are not taken into account are: Vetta, E+, higher upload limits, position of my images in the best match, more time for producing images. Close call I think.

sharply_done · « **Reply #54 on:** April 13, 2010, 15:24 »

.nevermind.

cdwheatley · « **Reply #55 on:** April 13, 2010, 15:27 »

Quote from: sharply_done on April 13, 2010, 15:24

.nevermind.

Yep, save your breath.

macrosaur · « **Reply #56 on:** April 13, 2010, 19:10 »

fact is,

you're all less than 10 $ / photo.

larsfrisk · « **Reply #57 on:** April 26, 2010, 15:27 »

Any exclusives out there who can report the effects of the raised prices on exlusive files? Do you sell as much as you did before the raise or has the number of sales gone down?

Eyedesign · « **Reply #58 on:** April 26, 2010, 16:17 »

Numbers have gone up for me

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #59 on:** April 26, 2010, 16:37 »

Sales down, income up.

ShadySue · « **Reply #60 on:** April 26, 2010, 17:11 »

Quote from: larsfrisk on April 26, 2010, 15:27

Any exclusives out there who can report the effects of the raised prices on exlusive files? Do you sell as much as you did before the raise or has the number of sales gone down?

Remember the decreasing sales can just be a result of the ever-increasing number of files in the collection, so most of us get a smaller slice of the pie. It's just about impossible to attribute reasons to falling downfalls. My downfalls were in freefall before the price increases. In fact, my Vetta files sell above my expectations, even with non-Vetta similars, and I've had 3 Exc+ sales with only about 1/4 of my allocation used, and among very few sales since Exc+ was rolled out.

lagereek · « **Reply #61 on:** April 26, 2010, 23:37 »

Ive sent dozens and dozens of buyers to IS over the years ofcourse with a selfish interest but also IS has gained a lot and its a great place. However, the site is now getting messy, its too much of special this and special that with all differant pricing, etc.

Some 95% of buyers just want an ordinary pic, they dont want to get involved in all this structuring, one guy said to me: I dont even know how to buy there anymore.

If Gettys ambition is to slowly turn IS into Macro, etc then they should just go ahead and do it! all this creeping around the bush is just confusing buyers and contributors for that matter. Besides, they cant survive on a 18% exclusivity out of total contributors? so why doesnt Getty just turn the whole site into a giant RF agency, its going towards that anyway.

best.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #62 on:** April 27, 2010, 03:04 »

Quote

It's just about impossible to attribute reasons to falling downfalls.

I agree, although I see a definite correlation between price increase and fall offs in downloads. Fortunately I have so far always seen a greater income increase compared with my sales decrease so I'm fine with that. I believe IS has tried to position itself at the higher end of the market and so far succeeds IMHO, you only need to look at the vector quality on IS and see it's far better than many other sites. Designers with bigger budgets who appreciate quality , and to whom a dollar or two increase is of no concern, will always pick IS first. The Mom and Pop buyers can shop at less professional sites.

lagereek · « **Reply #63 on:** April 27, 2010, 04:44 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on April 27, 2010, 03:04

Quote
It's just about impossible to attribute reasons to falling downfalls.

I agree, although I see a definite correlation between price increase and fall offs in downloads. Fortunately I have so far always seen a greater income increase compared with my sales decrease so I'm fine with that. I believe IS has tried to position itself at the higher end of the market and so far succeeds IMHO, you only need to look at the vector quality on IS and see it's far better than many other sites. Designers with bigger budgets who appreciate quality , and to whom a dollar or two increase is of no concern, will always pick IS first. The Mom and Pop buyers can shop at less professional sites.

True! but youre talking about a meager 5% of buyers ( according to all stats) how are 20 micros going to cash in on that? in this Micro world, its the little ordinary guy thats need looking after, hes the one putting food on your table.

lisafx · « **Reply #64 on:** April 27, 2010, 08:59 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on April 27, 2010, 03:04

The Mom and Pop buyers can shop at less professional sites.

This would be comforting if it were true, but the fact is that the top four sites are all very professional and have a lot to offer buyers, both in choice and service.

And the other three besides Istock have the added benefit to buyers of being stable and not so confusing with changes to structure and pricing several times a year.

Istock doesn't even have necessarily the most extensive collection. I just noticed yet another top seller, with extremely professional desirable images (Kurhan) who has over 12k images on DT and less than 1k on Istock. This is clearly not down to just upload limits because I have managed to get 5k on Istock in the same period of time she's been there. It is very telling that some of the top producers in the industry no longer find Istock worth bothering with.

rene · « **Reply #65 on:** April 27, 2010, 09:35 »

Quote from: lisafx on April 27, 2010, 08:59

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on April 27, 2010, 03:04
The Mom and Pop buyers can shop at less professional sites.
Istock doesn't even have necessarily the most extensive collection. I just noticed yet another top seller, with extremely professional desirable images (Kurhan) who has over 12k images on DT and less than 1k on Istock. This is clearly not down to just upload limits because I have managed to get 5k on Istock in the same period of time she's been there. It is very telling that some of the top producers in the industry no longer find Istock worth bothering with.

I think Kurhan is an exception. Yuri Arcurs, Belleimages, Iofoto, Phildate, Redbaron, Monkeybusiness and many other stopped uploading to Dreamstime.
I'm from few weeks exclusive at IS and my last weekends' numbers are better than entirely months at DT. Some do better on one site, some on other. Microstock has strange rules.

lagereek · « **Reply #66 on:** April 27, 2010, 11:42 »

Quote from: rene on April 27, 2010, 09:35

Quote from: lisafx on April 27, 2010, 08:59
Quote from: vlad_the_imp on April 27, 2010, 03:04
The Mom and Pop buyers can shop at less professional sites.
Istock doesn't even have necessarily the most extensive collection. I just noticed yet another top seller, with extremely professional desirable images (Kurhan) who has over 12k images on DT and less than 1k on Istock. This is clearly not down to just upload limits because I have managed to get 5k on Istock in the same period of time she's been there. It is very telling that some of the top producers in the industry no longer find Istock worth bothering with.
I think Kurhan is an exception. Yuri Arcurs, Belleimages, Iofoto, Phildate, Redbaron, Monkeybusiness and many other stopped uploading to Dreamstime.
I'm from few weeks exclusive at IS and my last weekends' numbers are better than entirely months at DT. Some do better on one site, some on other. Microstock has strange rules.

Lisa is absoloutly right! equal quality is to be found in all the major, 3 or 4 agencies, no doubt what so ever and ofcourse in the long run the cheapest will win, human nature isnt it?
If we go on thinking were better at IS, we are seriously deluding ourselves. The Vetta stands out a bit but not much.
Remember, were talking nickle/dime prices here, a buyer whos gonna spend 100 bucks plus isnt visiting these places at all. I think we have to be very careful indeed the next couple of months, all this is too much alike what the Image-Bank went through in 93 and sure enough, look what happend! only differance is, today its digital, no big deal.

VB inc · « **Reply #67 on:** April 27, 2010, 13:05 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 27, 2010, 04:44

True! but youre talking about a meager 5% of buyers ( according to all stats) how are 20 micros going to cash in on that? in this Micro world, its the little ordinary guy thats need looking after, hes the one putting food on your table.

Excuse my ignorance but what stats are you referring to? I'm exclusive at istock so i cant say much for the other agencies and their buyers habits. I feel that a good chunk of the macro market has gone into the micro market (at least in istock) so they are used to seeing much higher prices and dont mind these higher prices especially with the E+ prices. With this price hike, i believe Getty is trying to herd the mom and pop shoppers to thinkstock which is troublesome.

sharpshot · « **Reply #68 on:** April 27, 2010, 13:37 »

Will the mom and pop shoppers buy a subscription? I still don't understand what they are doing with thinkstock. Making istock prices higher and then expecting us to accept the lowest subs commissions doesn't make any sense to me. If they want thinkstock to work, they should offer non-exclusives at least the same commissions as shutterstock. I also didn't understand why they closed StockXpert, it looks to me that a lot of the buyers there went to their rival sites.

cathyslife · « **Reply #69 on:** April 27, 2010, 14:18 »

Quote from: sharpshot on April 27, 2010, 13:37

Will the mom and pop shoppers buy a subscription?

I am going to say no. But it depends on your definition of a mom and pop shopper. I consider myself a mom and pop shopper. I freelance work or work full-time as a graphic designer. I have to buy stock photos for projects. I am not like an ad agency, where I buy tons of images a year and charge outrageous prices for my work. The businesses I work for are small to medium-sized.

I would not invest in a subscription because I just don't buy/use that kind of volume. I want to be able to get exactly the photo I need and I will shop at any of the sites to get it. If a couple of sites have the same image, I buy it from the lowest-cost on-demand site. For the majority of my projects, I can't use the "artsy" stuff. I buy more "real people, real life, everyday" type of photos, that depict the same. Now and again I get a juicy job and get to run free with it and might look for some "out of the norm" type of image, but not typically.

I think that I am fairly typical amongst the "mom and pop shopper" category.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #70 on:** April 27, 2010, 14:46 »

Quote

a buyer whos gonna spend 100 bucks plus isnt visiting these places at all

You're wrong there. I've been contacted by some big buyers, one in particular, via iStock. Lots of people shop there.

lagereek · « **Reply #71 on:** April 27, 2010, 15:52 »

Quote from: VB inc on April 27, 2010, 13:05

Quote from: lagereek on April 27, 2010, 04:44
True! but youre talking about a meager 5% of buyers ( according to all stats) how are 20 micros going to cash in on that? in this Micro world, its the little ordinary guy thats need looking after, hes the one putting food on your table.

Excuse my ignorance but what stats are you referring to? I'm exclusive at istock so i cant say much for the other agencies and their buyers habits. I feel that a good chunk of the macro market has gone into the micro market (at least in istock) so they are used to seeing much higher prices and dont mind these higher prices especially with the E+ prices. With this price hike, i believe Getty is trying to herd the mom and pop shoppers to thinkstock which is troublesome.

Yes indeed, that is troublesome thoughts! Getty isnt exactly doing anything from the godness of their heart. Ive been in their RM since 1993 ( came from Stones and Image-Bank), theyve done some great, great things but the way theyre enforcing things, structures on IS, lately. are very questionable and I cant help wondering where its all gonna end?

Dook · « **Reply #72 on:** April 27, 2010, 16:05 »

At least I am not wondering. In 1993 the market was so closed i could not get in. Thanks to internet and Istock I am stock photographer now.

lagereek · « **Reply #73 on:** April 27, 2010, 16:43 »

Quote from: Dook on April 27, 2010, 16:05

At least I am not wondering. In 1993 the market was so closed i could not get in. Thanks to internet and Istock I am stock photographer now.

well mate that was very-------enlighting, Im gonna sleep well at nights knowing you finally got in 15 years later and blooming hell youre a stock photographer.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #74 on:** April 27, 2010, 16:45 »

Quote from: lagereek on April 26, 2010, 23:37

... Besides, they cant survive on a 18% exclusivity out of total contributors? so why doesnt Getty just turn the whole site into a giant RF agency, its going towards that anyway.

best.

80% of the top 200 artists/photographers on IS are exclusive. That counts more than the somewhat irrelevant bottom half of the list making the figure 18% exclusive. No typo 80% of the top contributors (can't account for the

?? people) are Exclusive! Look at the percentage of total downloads that are exclusive, not exclusive contributors percentage and it's a different story.

Top 200 #200 has 65,000 downloads. If you add up all the downloads of the bottom half of IS, or the bottom 15,000 members, they don't have 65,000 total download between them!

Yes they can survive on 80% exclusive contributors, providing the majority of the sales on iStock.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Evaluating Exclusivity at Istock - Crunching the Numbers (Read 38554 times)

sharpshot

macrosaur

CofkoCof

MatHayward

sharply_done

cdwheatley

macrosaur

larsfrisk

Eyedesign

vlad_the_imp

ShadySue

lagereek

vlad_the_imp

lagereek

lisafx

rene

lagereek

VB inc

sharpshot

cathyslife

vlad_the_imp

lagereek

Dook

lagereek

RacePhoto

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors