Author Topic: First Month of the New Improved IS (Read 17648 times)

Uncle Pete · « **on:** October 16, 2014, 12:37 »

Significantly meaning 33% or more increase/decrease. Income for the last month compared either to Sept-Oct 2013 or what your average monthly expectations are. If you feel that 29 1/2 % is significant, that's fine too. The 33 is just a starting point for "What is significant?" not a locked in absolute number.

And he asked:

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #1 on:** October 17, 2014, 15:27 »

22 that's all? Makes me wonder if the survey on the right barely has the 25 needed each month? Interesting so far, and it follows the threads here, that most people have seen a drop.

cuppacoffee · « **Reply #2 on:** October 17, 2014, 15:39 »

Can you add an option something like, "I'm not an istock contributor but am interested in the results" click button. If you don't vote, you can't see the results and some of these polls are interesting to a wider audience.

pancaketom · « **Reply #3 on:** October 17, 2014, 15:50 »

how can indys know their IS earnings 'til the PP sales are reported?

Dook · « **Reply #4 on:** October 17, 2014, 15:53 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on October 17, 2014, 15:39

Can you add an option something like, "I'm not an istock contributor but am interested in the results" click button. If you don't vote, you can't see the results and some of these polls are interesting to a wider audience.

That one is so rare.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #5 on:** October 17, 2014, 18:00 »

Well, September was a BMY, but not necessarily due to the changes. And that still doesn't mean much if the other months were bad.

About the same compared to last year, though.

October has been pretty bad in terms of downloads so far, so my initial positive surprise about the changes has now turned back to pessimism.

Sulio · « **Reply #6 on:** October 17, 2014, 19:43 »

Very steady in decline

Freedom · « **Reply #7 on:** October 17, 2014, 19:53 »

As an exclusive, I don't know yet.

PP has only been updated to the 15th, and G.I. has not been reported yet. G.I. sales sometimes constitute around 30% of my revenue.

KB · « **Reply #8 on:** October 17, 2014, 23:35 »

Quote from: Freedom on October 17, 2014, 19:53

As an exclusive, I don't know yet.

PP has only been updated to the 15th, and G.I. has not reported yet. G.I. sales sometimes constitute around 30% of my revenue.

Do you think your PP and/ or G.I. sales will be affected by the changes at IS?

It's been one month since the changes hit iStock.com. I don't think it's too early to see how those changes have affected your iStock.com sales, anyway.

Freedom · « **Reply #9 on:** October 18, 2014, 00:25 »

Quote from: KB on October 17, 2014, 23:35

Quote from: Freedom on October 17, 2014, 19:53
As an exclusive, I don't know yet.

PP has only been updated to the 15th, and G.I. has not reported yet. G.I. sales sometimes constitute around 30% of my revenue.
Do you think your PP and/ or G.I. sales will be affected by the changes at IS?

It's been one month since the changes hit iStock.com. I don't think it's too early to see how those changes have affected your iStock.com sales, anyway.

You know what, not sure if I am just lucky, I actually see more dls and revenue after the change was announced. Honestly I don't like to sell all sizes at one price. But hey, if it works, then so be it. I am willing to have an open mind for now.

Just reviewed my stats. The revenue for this September on IS site alone (without GI and complete PP) was better than the combined total in September 2013 (my WMY). So yes, I have seen an increase. The question is how much.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #10 on:** October 18, 2014, 05:37 »

Quote from: Freedom on October 18, 2014, 00:25

Just reviewed my stats. The revenue for this September on IS site alone (without GI and complete PP) was better than the combined total in September 2013 (my WMY). So yes, I have seen an increase. The question is how much.

Only the last 10 days of September were on the new system, you need to look at the last week of September and what you have sold this month to get the comparison.

JKB · « **Reply #11 on:** October 18, 2014, 06:15 »

Personally, I think it's too early to draw any firm conclusions at this point. There have been two major changes this year, and the more significant one IMO is the intro of subs earlier this year. September subs were substantial and growing and October's haven't been reported yet.

But, FWIW, credit sales have increased for me since the September change, both in DLs and total $$, and I'm still cautiously optimistic about the long-term impact of the most recent changes.

It is of course worrying to read that so many have seen significant drops in DLs. Then again, my PF isn't that unique so I'm hoping that more people have seen a continuing uptick in credit sales, but for various reasons have chosen not to report it.

Difydave · « **Reply #12 on:** October 18, 2014, 07:01 »

Quote from: cuppacoffee on October 17, 2014, 15:39

Can you add an option something like, "I'm not an istock contributor but am interested in the results" click button. If you don't vote, you can't see the results and some of these polls are interesting to a wider audience.

I think you see it by default if you are logged out. At least I did when I looked in on a tablet last night.

Way down here since the change. Very disappointing results since. As far as other payments are concerned, subs have in no way made up for the drop seen after they were brought in, and Getty sales were supposed to be an "extra", a perk for exclusives, not a mechanism to make up for lack of sales on the main site. PP sales have been declining for some time before these changes. Down to a fraction now of what they were.
It's reassuring in some ways to see that at least some people are still doing OK but without knowing their status at iStock it's difficult to draw any conclusions.

Freedom · « **Reply #13 on:** October 18, 2014, 09:22 »

Quote from: JKB on October 18, 2014, 06:15

September subs were substantial and growing and October's haven't been reported yet.

This was my experience in September too. I had never had so many sub sales, at about $1 per DL. Good or bad? I don't know.

Mantis · « **Reply #14 on:** October 18, 2014, 09:23 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 16, 2014, 12:37

Significantly meaning 33% or more increase/decrease. Income for the last month compared either to Sept-Oct 2013 or what your average monthly expectations are. If you feel that 29 1/2 % is significant, that's fine too. The 33 is just a starting point for "What is significant?" not a locked in absolute number.

And he asked:

That's funny, Pete.

As far as sales, about the same. One main frustration is seeing most sales being XXX sizes for pennies in comparison to pre launch.

Mantis · « **Reply #15 on:** October 18, 2014, 09:30 »

Quote from: Freedom on October 18, 2014, 09:22

Quote from: JKB on October 18, 2014, 06:15
September subs were substantial and growing and October's haven't been reported yet.

This was my experience in September too. I had never had so many sub sales, at about $1 per DL. Good or bad? I don't know.

In my humble opinion time will tell. If buyers are weened from basic credit sales into subs, one little tweak by IS/Getty to reduce subs pricing/commission will probably mean DPC competition.

Red On · « **Reply #16 on:** October 18, 2014, 10:55 »

Significant, for me and my small portfolio, means 0 (zero) pictures sold this month. I'm uploading on iStock few pictures per month because is almost a waste of time compared with other gencies and the commission is worthy of a usurer. The only "satisfaction" came from patner sites, but this month were still not updated.

MxR · « **Reply #17 on:** October 18, 2014, 17:55 »

I have 50% more files in Istock than Pond5.

This month they are in dollar revenue draw.

Istock is now a low earner...other histoy is PP an Getty.

Istock is death

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** October 18, 2014, 18:03 »

Quote from: pancaketom on October 17, 2014, 15:50

how can indys know their IS earnings 'til the PP sales are reported?

There were no new 'improvements' in the PP.
This is about base iS earnings.

Freedom · « **Reply #19 on:** October 18, 2014, 18:17 »

I wonder how other exclusives fared in subscription sales in September. I had never made as many sub sales as I did in September 2014.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #20 on:** October 18, 2014, 18:43 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 18, 2014, 18:03

Quote from: pancaketom on October 17, 2014, 15:50
how can indys know their IS earnings 'til the PP sales are reported?
There were no new 'improvements' in the PP.
This is about base iS earnings.

So your excluding subs from base istock earnings? Cuz if you include subs we still have to wait.

Either way istock earnings are what my owner scoops up in a bag.

ShadySue · « **Reply #21 on:** October 18, 2014, 19:04 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on October 18, 2014, 18:43

Quote from: ShadySue on October 18, 2014, 18:03
Quote from: pancaketom on October 17, 2014, 15:50
how can indys know their IS earnings 'til the PP sales are reported?
There were no new 'improvements' in the PP.
This is about base iS earnings.

So your excluding subs from base istock earnings? Cuz if you include subs we still have to wait.

Either way istock earnings are what my owner scoops up in a bag.

Uncle Pete will need to clarify what he meant, but I was assuming he was talking about iS credit sales since the changes in mid-Sept, as the thread title is "First Month of the New Improved IS".

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #22 on:** October 18, 2014, 19:28 »

Sorry, is it broken like the others that said "allow anyone to view the results" (calling Leaf, send up the secret Leaf symbol on a spotlight from city hall) And yes I will go fix it, thanks for the heads up.

Quote from: cuppacoffee on October 17, 2014, 15:39

Can you add an option something like, "I'm not an istock contributor but am interested in the results" click button. If you don't vote, you can't see the results and some of these polls are interesting to a wider audience.

The option to change vote is enabled, so if something shocking happens to PP or Subs, please feel free to adjust it. Oh - and yes I mean overall sales, sorry. Because for some people the change, has changed Subs or TS sales. For me my regular sales are up in value, but I haven't seen the results to PP sales yet.

Quote from: Mantis on October 18, 2014, 09:23

That's funny, Pete.

As far as sales, about the same. One main frustration is seeing most sales being XXX sizes for pennies in comparison to pre launch.

PD train wreck image just in case anyone is concerned.

One size fits all, I don't know if I like it or not. It eliminates wacky prices when people could buy a Medium and upsize or have to pay for a Medium and only need an XS (which doesn't exist)

I don't see it the same as buying a print, where materials to produce it, would be various costs. It's digital, why should different sizes, be different prices? And I mean that within some limits.

Phone shots cheap, P&S or Bridge medium size a little more, 18MP and up the most. Based on equipment and assumed professional investment, artistic efforts. That I could defend.

Trusting that buyers will only take the size they need is humorous. "Free Pixels, take only what you need".

In other words, I have mixed opinions of the one size concept. For someone busting their bank account, full frame camera, a studio and models and taking time to make perfect Extra Large images, I can understand the frustration. And then when someone snaps something on a little crop camera with a kit lens, and it has the same market value? Kind of an insult.

The real problem is, images should be priced by use, not size, and RF doesn't address that at all, so size was supposed to make some kind of difference. Generally it doesn't?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 19, 2014, 06:36 »

Well, with the majority of people reporting lower income, it looks like iStock's shot itself in the foot again.

October is on track to be slightly lower than September for me, so i'm guessing the second half of September people were using up their credits. But sales are picking up pretty nicely on SS. Maybe that's where former iS customers are buying now.

bunhill · « **Reply #24 on:** October 19, 2014, 08:01 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 19, 2014, 06:36

Well, with the majority of people reporting lower income, it looks like iStock's shot itself in the foot again.

There is obviously too little evidence here and over much too short a period to draw any sensible conclusion about the numbers. From here.

IMO iStock now has a long window, probably even years, in which to demonstrate growth vs today. Because growth (specifically subscriber numbers growth) is measured against previous quarters and not against all time highs. Investors (and probably ultimately markets) are most interested in growth and the potential for growth.

If growth, by whatever measure, is the only thing that matters then I think that starting on the back foot may end up being to their advantage. Especially compared with other companies which may have less room to increase the number of subscribers at a time when markets are looking so very uncertain.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #25 on:** October 19, 2014, 09:12 »

Quote from: bunhill on October 19, 2014, 08:01

If growth, by whatever measure, is the only thing that matters then I think that starting on the back foot may end up being to their advantage. Especially compared with other companies which may have less room to increase the number of subscribers at a time when markets are looking so very uncertain.

That could apply to a company with a clean slate wanting to get sold on to the next lot of investors, I'm not so sure about a company that is up to its neck in debt with ratings agencies giving it a pretty dodgy grade. As I understand it, Getty's ability to service its huge debt is rooted in the idea that it will have been growing its income steadily for the last couple of years, whereas the reverse seems to have been happening. It's hard to see how they can afford to have any of their main businesses going further and further onto the "back foot".

In my case, the first 16 days of this month saw just 25% of the downloads and 50% of the earnings of the same period last year, compared with Sept 1-16 last month (and ignoring an EL which would make it look even worse) sales are down by more than half and earnings by more than a third.

My returns may be particularly hard-hit because I've always regarded microstock as being for people who want small and cheap files and shot accordingly, for the sort of bloggers and small businesses whom istock apparently no longer wants as customers.

(edited to try to sort out my mess with the quote system -- goodness knows if I will get it right this time!)

bunhill · « **Reply #26 on:** October 19, 2014, 10:31 »

^ To be clear I did not write any of the stuff which Baldrick has attributed to me.

Whoever she has quoted - it was not me. Shenanigous

I appreciate you correcting this.

bunhill · « **Reply #27 on:** October 19, 2014, 11:08 »

^ really ? What kind of nasty person votes someone down for pointing out that they never wrote something which they have been quoted as saying? And does not have the common decency to at least explain why.

Freedom · « **Reply #28 on:** October 19, 2014, 11:12 »

Quote from: bunhill on October 19, 2014, 11:08

^ really ? What kind of nasty person votes someone down for pointing out that they never wrote something which they have been quoted as saying? And does not have the common decency to at least explain why.

LOL, someone also voted "Disagree" when I was reporting my experience. How can one disagree with someone's experience?

It made me laugh.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #29 on:** October 19, 2014, 11:52 »

Quote from: bunhill on October 19, 2014, 10:31

^ To be clear I did not write any of the stuff which Baldrick has attributed to me.

Whoever she has quoted - it was not me. Shenanigous

I didn't give you the minus 1 but you did say:

Quote

If growth, by whatever measure, is the only thing that matters then I think that starting on the back foot may end up being to their advantage. Especially compared with other companies which may have less room to increase the number of subscribers at a time when markets are looking so very uncertain.

Somehow it was attributed to Shelma. The rest of the quote, attributed to you, is Baldricks reply to what you posted. It gets confusing when there are too many quoted strings of talk. I doubt it was on purpose.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #30 on:** October 19, 2014, 12:01 »

Quote from: bunhill on October 19, 2014, 08:01

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 19, 2014, 06:36
Well, with the majority of people reporting lower income, it looks like iStock's shot itself in the foot again.

There is obviously too little evidence here and over much too short a period to draw any sensible conclusion about the numbers. From here.

IMO iStock now has a long window, probably even years, in which to demonstrate growth vs today. Because growth (specifically subscriber numbers growth) is measured against previous quarters and not against all time highs. Investors (and probably ultimately markets) are most interested in growth and the potential for growth.

If growth, by whatever measure, is the only thing that matters then I think that starting on the back foot may end up being to their advantage. Especially compared with other companies which may have less room to increase the number of subscribers at a time when markets are looking so very uncertain.

October is a good month for stock, historically. Yet sales and earnings are down this month at iStock. That means they're down even more, really, because they should have gone up. As they did at their main competitor. My sales there are up about 25% over this time last year. Growth is happening, just not at iStock.

bunhill · « **Reply #31 on:** October 19, 2014, 12:59 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on October 19, 2014, 11:52

Somehow it was attributed to Shelma. The rest of the quote, attributed to you, is Baldricks reply to what you posted. It gets confusing when there are too many quoted strings of talk. I doubt it was on purpose.

It's trivial enough to edit a mistake and get it right. I doubt any of us wants to be quoted saying things we did not write. It's a basic courtesy surely, if using the quote function, to ensure that you do not misrepresent peoples' opinions.

^ I did not write the stuff which ~~Shelma~~ Baldrick has attributed to me previously. Just to be clear again.

.... See .... Easy to edit

gostwyck · « **Reply #32 on:** October 19, 2014, 13:53 »

Quote from: bunhill on October 19, 2014, 12:59

Quote from: PixelBytes on October 19, 2014, 11:52
Somehow it was attributed to Shelma. The rest of the quote, attributed to you, is Baldricks reply to what you posted. It gets confusing when there are too many quoted strings of talk. I doubt it was on purpose.

It's trivial enough to edit a mistake and get it right. I doubt any of us wants to be quoted saying things we did not write. It's a basic courtesy surely, if using the quote function, to ensure that you do not misrepresent peoples' opinions.

^ I did not write the stuff which ~~Shelma~~ Baldrick has attributed to me previously. Just to be clear again.

.... See .... Easy to edit

Keep your knickers on. If anyone had been reading the thread then they'd have known, from previous postings, who had said what and when. It was perfectly obvious that BT had made a minor error in his editing but the point he was making was clear. At no point did I even begin to attribute BT's excellent sentence structure and arguments to your good self __ obviously.

bunhill · « **Reply #33 on:** October 19, 2014, 14:02 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 19, 2014, 13:53

Keep your knickers on. If anyone had been reading the thread then they'd have known, from previous postings, who had said what and when. It was perfectly obvious that BT had made a minor error in his editing but the point he was making was clear. At no point did I even begin to attribute BT's excellent sentence structure and arguments to your good self __ obviously.

Fair enough I suppose.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #34 on:** October 19, 2014, 14:30 »

Sorry for any misattribution. I try to get the quote things right but at the same time it is the points being made, not who said things that is important. The discussion matters more than the personalities. (I've put it right now .... and therefore made mockery of all the outraged comments! Sorry, chaps)

JKB · « **Reply #35 on:** October 19, 2014, 14:33 »

Quote from: Freedom on October 19, 2014, 11:12

Quote from: bunhill on October 19, 2014, 11:08
^ really ? What kind of nasty person votes someone down for pointing out that they never wrote something which they have been quoted as saying? And does not have the common decency to at least explain why.

LOL, someone also voted "Disagree" when I was reporting my experience. How can one disagree with someone's experience?

It made me laugh.

Yes, I chuckled at that as well. I think someone has disagreed with most posts in this thread.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #36 on:** October 20, 2014, 05:43 »

Looking at my sales, things are still slowing down. That's not surprising if people are using up the New Credits they got issued and then going away. The shocking thing is that I just checked my records for April 2004 and it looks as if I will have fewer sales this month than I did back then - my first file was accepted on April 1, 2004 and I had about 100 files online by the end of that month, compared with almost 5,000 now. If you take my average portfolio size for April 04 as 50 files, and the sales volume for this month as likely to just about equal what it was back then, that means my sales rate has fallen 99% and earnings per file per month has fallen about 95% since 04.

This is not good for me.

mojaric · « **Reply #37 on:** October 20, 2014, 06:10 »

...downloads are induscussibly down of about 50%

in terms of earnings looks similar or not dramatically down as i'm paid more for one image...i will see at the end of the month

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #38 on:** October 20, 2014, 12:19 »

Yes that was the point and also because the other thread says "this week" which is even more short sighted. Give it time and lets see.

Quote from: mojaric on October 20, 2014, 06:10

...downloads are induscussibly down of about 50%

in terms of earnings looks similar or not dramatically down as i'm paid more for one image...i will see at the end of the month

Quote from: bunhill on October 19, 2014, 08:01

There is obviously too little evidence here and over much too short a period to draw any sensible conclusion about the numbers. From here.

I left out the other part and quotes. Yes I'd agree, it's just a discussion and ongoing look at the new system.

We have to look at all aspects. How does this change IS regular DL values? What kind of changes will be see in Subs and TS?

I thought it was interesting that one person said it was hurting TS downloads which are their major source of income from IS. Because for me, TS is a minor source of income and Getty or IS DLs are the majority.

Meaning, we aren't all gaining or losing from the same IS sources, and the new pricing might have different effects on various people.

I'll give it time, but my IS downloads (not subs, or TS) are at least four times higher value now and back to where they were the month that TS was opened. They took a substantial dive and have been down for years. So yes, I'm getting better returns and it's making me happier.

I also recognize that the levels and changes in collections, will have different effects on people, but as an Indy, it means little to me. The credit value increase has helped me.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #39 on:** October 20, 2014, 12:37 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 20, 2014, 12:19

I thought it was interesting that one person said it was hurting TS downloads which are their major source of income from IS. Because for me, TS is a minor source of income and Getty or IS DLs are the majority.

Meaning, we aren't all gaining or losing from the same IS sources, and the new pricing might have different effects on various people.

It's possible - indeed, probable - that different types of portfolio will be affected in different ways as will exclusives compared with independents. However, the most recent TS info we have only covers the first week of the change, it seems unlikely that anything meaningful and observable would have happened to TS immediately. Partly used subscriptions wouldn't suddenly be abandoned because of some changes in a different Getty website, it wouldn't make sense.

gostwyck · « **Reply #40 on:** October 21, 2014, 09:20 »

My sales at Istock are continuing to slow as each week passes, possibly as existing credits are used up. Last October I had over 600 regular sales (not counting PP, etc). This month it will be fewer than 200.

In October 2009 I had 1300 sales. How things have changed in 5 years.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #41 on:** October 21, 2014, 10:17 »

Yes that's what I was saying. Also the "Golden Age" of Microstock has passed, it's not coming back.

Mostly I was tired of reading "after a week..." when it's been a month.

Neither is long enough to see a convincing trend and even with that, IS has been going through changes over the past years, without these most recent adjustments.

They opened the gates and dropped upload restrictions. Apparently of the estimated current 17 million images, roughly 40% are Exclusive. Review standards have been lowered. There's much more going on than, one size fits all, revalued credits or dropping all the overlapping and confusing collections.

My regular IS downloads are up in value. That's enough to make me happy with the new plan. Now when the PP reports come in, it will be interesting to see it it was just switching my money from one pocket to another and no gain or change.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 20, 2014, 12:37

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 20, 2014, 12:19
I thought it was interesting that one person said it was hurting TS downloads which are their major source of income from IS. Because for me, TS is a minor source of income and Getty or IS DLs are the majority.

Meaning, we aren't all gaining or losing from the same IS sources, and the new pricing might have different effects on various people.
It's possible - indeed, probable - that different types of portfolio will be affected in different ways as will exclusives compared with independents. However, the most recent TS info we have only covers the first week of the change, it seems unlikely that anything meaningful and observable would have happened to TS immediately. Partly used subscriptions wouldn't suddenly be abandoned because of some changes in a different Getty website, it wouldn't make sense.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #42 on:** October 21, 2014, 11:24 »

I don't know...if any of my advertising clients saw sales plunge like iS has, they'd be reversing course pretty quickly. (The most famous example being "new Coke." That product lasted about a nanosecond.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

gostwyck · « **Reply #43 on:** October 21, 2014, 11:43 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 21, 2014, 11:24

I don't know...if any of my advertising clients saw sales plunge like iS has, they'd be reversing course pretty quickly. (The most famous example being "new Coke." That product lasted about a nanosecond.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

I agree but every time Istock do take action to address their current issues ... they just seem to create new problems and make things worse.

I wonder what would happen if they simply went back to the pricing and royalty architecture of 2009?

Shelma1 · « **Reply #44 on:** October 21, 2014, 11:56 »

I think they should sit down and talk to a bunch of the clients who are defecting and ask them what they can do to make things right. Stop tossing pasta at the wall to see what sticks, to put it very nicely. I hate to see them collapse, but honestly all it means for me, as an indie, is that those sales move elsewhere. SS earnings are now up 32% for me over this time last year.

w7lwi · « **Reply #45 on:** October 21, 2014, 12:06 »

I haven't uploaded to iS since I took all my model images down back when we were concerned about Getty ripping off images and putting them up for free download. Has anything changed since then that would make it worthwhile to restart uploading? I hate the thought of some of my best selling images being at risk of being offered for free when I'm collecting EL's and other high dollar payments elsewhere. Regardless, I still wouldn't upload images with people in them, only non-people shots.

Holmes · « **Reply #46 on:** October 21, 2014, 18:55 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 21, 2014, 11:56

I think they should sit down and talk to a bunch of the clients who are defecting and ask them what they can do to make things right. Stop tossing pasta at the wall to see what sticks, to put it very nicely. I hate to see them collapse, but honestly all it means for me, as an indie, is that those sales move elsewhere. SS earnings are now up 32% for me over this time last year.

They have conducted tons of surveys and research and even had Yuri fly in and advise them -- and they STILL MESS IT UP...

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #47 on:** October 22, 2014, 04:03 »

Quote from: Holmes on October 21, 2014, 18:55

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 21, 2014, 11:56
I think they should sit down and talk to a bunch of the clients who are defecting and ask them what they can do to make things right. Stop tossing pasta at the wall to see what sticks, to put it very nicely. I hate to see them collapse, but honestly all it means for me, as an indie, is that those sales move elsewhere. SS earnings are now up 32% for me over this time last year.

They have conducted tons of surveys and research and even had Yuri fly in and advise them -- and they STILL MESS IT UP...

And it's so easy to get things right, all you have to do is sit down and think through how your customers and suppliers will react to a change. If the reaction is going to be positive you're on to a winner if it's going to be negative you're going down the drain. If you think it through like that, then when your new MBA-holding manager rushes in and says "Hey boss, I've just worked out that if we double the prices and halve the commissions we'll make four times as much money" you don't swoon with delight over the brilliance of the conception and award the MBA an annual bonus, you kick her up the backside and tell her to get real.
I once met a high-flying business consultant who had worked in Margaret Thatcher's private office. She told me that the secret of consultancy was to get people to tell you what everybody in the business already knew and then tell it back to the boss, who knew it anyway but didn't like it and wasn't willing to listen to anybody else who told him. It does seem that ever since Bruce left wishful-thinking management has been in place, and the only thing being listened to is "we can squeeze them here", "they won't notice if we do a deal behind their backs", "we can hide the true percentage we'll pay them like this", "the customers will swallow the price rise...", "they've got nothing to gain by quitting if we cut commissions" ....

Georgina · « **Reply #48 on:** October 22, 2014, 13:00 »

Istockphoto, Where greed meets incompetence

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #49 on:** October 22, 2014, 17:38 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 21, 2014, 09:20

My sales at Istock are continuing to slow as each week passes, possibly as existing credits are used up. Last October I had over 600 regular sales (not counting PP, etc). This month it will be fewer than 200.

In October 2009 I had 1300 sales. How things have changed in 5 years.

Yep it's like watching a horror film, from top dog to near fatality.

They're out of sync with the current market place, no doubt they'll keep throwing s%^&t at the wall to see what sticks and grind their customers and contributors down in the process. They had a winning formula but for some unfathomable reason they chose to tear it up.

runeer · « **Reply #50 on:** October 25, 2014, 05:02 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 22, 2014, 04:03

Quote from: Holmes on October 21, 2014, 18:55
Quote from: Shelma1 on October 21, 2014, 11:56
I think they should sit down and talk to a bunch of the clients who are defecting and ask them what they can do to make things right. Stop tossing pasta at the wall to see what sticks, to put it very nicely. I hate to see them collapse, but honestly all it means for me, as an indie, is that those sales move elsewhere. SS earnings are now up 32% for me over this time last year.

They have conducted tons of surveys and research and even had Yuri fly in and advise them -- and they STILL MESS IT UP...

And it's so easy to get things right, all you have to do is sit down and think through how your customers and suppliers will react to a change. If the reaction is going to be positive you're on to a winner if it's going to be negative you're going down the drain. If you think it through like that, then when your new MBA-holding manager rushes in and says "Hey boss, I've just worked out that if we double the prices and halve the commissions we'll make four times as much money" you don't swoon with delight over the brilliance of the conception and award the MBA an annual bonus, you kick her up the backside and tell her to get real.
I once met a high-flying business consultant who had worked in Margaret Thatcher's private office. She told me that the secret of consultancy was to get people to tell you what everybody in the business already knew and then tell it back to the boss, who knew it anyway but didn't like it and wasn't willing to listen to anybody else who told him. It does seem that ever since Bruce left wishful-thinking management has been in place, and the only thing being listened to is "we can squeeze them here", "they won't notice if we do a deal behind their backs", "we can hide the true percentage we'll pay them like this", "the customers will swallow the price rise...", "they've got nothing to gain by quitting if we cut commissions" ....

Exactly!!!

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #51 on:** October 28, 2014, 11:32 »

You know what, it's not September anymore and it's not the first week... (other thread)

Quote from: Georgina on October 22, 2014, 13:00

Istockphoto, Where greed meets incompetence

Quote from: gostwyck on October 16, 2014, 12:02

We all know this ... AFTO.

Difydave · « **Reply #52 on:** October 28, 2014, 12:59 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 28, 2014, 11:32

You know what, it's not September anymore and it's not the first week... (other thread)

Quote from: Georgina on October 22, 2014, 13:00
Istockphoto, Where greed meets incompetence

Quote from: gostwyck on October 16, 2014, 12:02
We all know this ... AFTO.
I knew I had the wrong thread. I needed to gripe though! (Still do!)

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #53 on:** October 28, 2014, 22:22 »

Quote from: Difydave on October 28, 2014, 12:59

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 28, 2014, 11:32
You know what, it's not September anymore and it's not the first week... (other thread)

Quote from: Georgina on October 22, 2014, 13:00
Istockphoto, Where greed meets incompetence

Quote from: gostwyck on October 16, 2014, 12:02
We all know this ... AFTO.
I knew I had the wrong thread. I needed to gripe though! (Still do!)

This is the right thread. Over a month since the change. 1 week is to short. 1 month isn't very long. Any change up or down could be normal variuation and nothing to do with the new.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #54 on:** October 30, 2014, 15:12 »

Odd, this just came up as unread, but I know it was?

Oh well, waiting for the PP and Subs to start coming in. And I'll be waiting for probably two weeks, won't I?

PixelBytes · « **Reply #55 on:** October 30, 2014, 15:57 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 30, 2014, 15:12

Odd, this just came up as unread, but I know it was?

Oh well, waiting for the PP and Subs to start coming in. And I'll be waiting for probably two weeks, won't I?

I noticed if someone edits their comment it will show up as unread again. I think that's how it works anyway.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #56 on:** October 31, 2014, 01:47 »

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on October 28, 2014, 22:22

This is the right thread. Over a month since the change. 1 week is to short. 1 month isn't very long. Any change up or down could be normal variuation and nothing to do with the new.

My earnings this month are so far below anything that I have had for about 10 years that there is not the slightest doubt it is a result of the changes.

gostwyck · « **Reply #57 on:** October 31, 2014, 09:12 »

Well for me the main effect of the 'New Improved Istock' ... has been a new BME ... at Shutterstock.

Thanks Istock!

michaeldb · « **Reply #58 on:** October 31, 2014, 18:54 »

Quote from: Georgina on October 22, 2014, 13:00

Istockphoto, Where greed meets incompetence

You left out 'dishonesty'. That was always my main objection to IS. No one tries to be incompetent, and all business is about 'greed' in a way (that's why they don't end in .org). But IS was dishonest, they intentionally cheated me in more ways than one, and that I do not forgive.

Red On · « **Reply #59 on:** October 31, 2014, 22:47 »

What is really changed in the photographic industry is that up to twenty years ago the spindle of this business was the photographer, now is the agent. I can't tolerate that an agent, that is working for me, change the rules on my shoulder without inform and discuss the new strategy BEFORE decide to apply it.

Unfortunately the steady growing number of photographers and the average lower request for quality and exclusive pictures by the customers, gave the handle to the agent.
Microstock is only a small part of my photographic income, and this is the reason why I'm not complaining.

What I want to say is that while the price of every goods are going up, pictures are condemned to go down. Is an evidence since 1995.

Closing this month, my microstock balance is approx the following:

IS zero%;
SS 30%;
FT 35%
DT 15%
123 15%
Pond+DP+Can 5%

Alamy is a part with a good result and the almost closed ClipDealer gave me an high RPI with the last few images...

Difydave · « **Reply #60 on:** November 01, 2014, 06:13 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 31, 2014, 01:47

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on October 28, 2014, 22:22
This is the right thread. Over a month since the change. 1 week is to short. 1 month isn't very long. Any change up or down could be normal variuation and nothing to do with the new.
My earnings this month are so far below anything that I have had for about 10 years that there is not the slightest doubt it is a result of the changes.

Exactly. "normal variation" wouldn't include the drop I've seen, except perhaps for Christmas weeks. If I'm being repeatedly kicked in the nether regions I don't need to wait for an extended period to know it's hurting!

Noedelhap · « **Reply #61 on:** November 02, 2014, 08:58 »

This is going downhill:

October regular sales stats vs:

September ($$): -57%
September (dls): -45%
October 2013 ($$): -25%
October 2013 (dls): -51%

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #62 on:** November 02, 2014, 09:32 »

It's a bit hard to judge the actual sales since there has been a clear and strong trend from credit sales to subscription sales before the September changes already.

My download numbers in October are down almost 50% from the spring & summer months. Then again in September I had more subscription than credit downloads on iStock itself (not including the partner program). So the download volume could be the same or actually a bit higher than before the change.

Obviously the higher number of subscription downloads leads to lower average sales, so the royalties will suffer a bit.

But I end up with about 60 credit sales, 70-80 subscription sales and about 200 sales through the partner program. That is about 25% in credit sales and 75% subscriptions, so we are reaching about the same distribution that Shutterstock has. I guess there soon will be a point when this move from credit to subs is going to be over and then it will show how iStock will build up on their new offer which obviously is meant to mirror Shutterstock's offer.

Only then we will be able to judge if the new system is going to help iStock get back to a growth path or if they lose the race against Shutterstock after all.

ShadySue · « **Reply #63 on:** November 02, 2014, 09:46 »

DLs compared to Sept 14: up 4%
Base $$ compared to Sept 14: up 9%
However, 2 ELs in Sept and 1 in Oct mean October's credit $$ total is down 8%
Up /well up from May - August credit sales, which were dire.

Worst October, by a long way; other than Oct 2007, my first year.
The new 'one size' system has raised my RPD, FWIW. But subs and the price slider seem to be eroding my bottom line. Sales pattern in my port seems to be preferring older files with few previous sales.

Buffalo Bill · « **Reply #64 on:** November 02, 2014, 09:50 »

I am small potatoes compared to the majority here but I started with 214 downloads per month (Jan) on iStock to well over 400 downloads now!

KB · « **Reply #65 on:** November 02, 2014, 10:52 »

Quote from: Buffalo Bill on November 02, 2014, 09:50

I am small potatoes compared to the majority here but I started with 214 downloads per month (Jan) on iStock to well over 400 downloads now!

If that's small potatoes, then I'm barely shoots pushing out of the ground.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #66 on:** November 02, 2014, 10:59 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on November 02, 2014, 09:32

I guess there soon will be a point when this move from credit to subs is going to be over and then it will show how iStock will build up on their new offer which obviously is meant to mirror Shutterstock's offer.

Only then we will be able to judge if the new system is going to help iStock get back to a growth path or if they lose the race against Shutterstock after all.

I think they've already lost. There was a time just a few months ago when SS brought me 3x as much income as iS, but since the introduction of subs it's been shifting—this month it's 5 to 1. And I was making an effort to upload the same things to both sites so my portfolio would grow by the same number of images in both places. (The number in my SS port is misleading because they count jpgs and vectors as separate images, so many of my images are counted twice.)

It seems iS subs just convinced some previous credit buyers to switch to subs, which resulted in a big income drop. And then the new pricing changes at iS drove more buyers over to Shutter. If only they would both grow...that would be great.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #67 on:** November 02, 2014, 13:53 »

As an indie I would like to upload the same number of new images to istock as to the other sites. I know subs rely on new work. But the tiresome upload process on istock means they only get a few images every couple months when I have nothing better to do. An I almost always can find something better to do.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #68 on:** November 02, 2014, 18:04 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on November 02, 2014, 13:53

As an indie I would like to upload the same number of new images to istock as to the other sites. I know subs rely on new work. But the tiresome upload process on istock means they only get a few images every couple months when I have nothing better to do. An I almost always can find something better to do.

I agree and am in the same position. The return that new uploads are producing there now is so low that it really doesn't justify the Deep Meta hassle. I can feed the rest of the sites with one click on an FTP server, followed by three or four clicks per image per site. Only iStock demands that everything be rekeyworded and -prioritised. It used to be worth the effort when the earnings matched those of SS but now .... three or four minutes per image and only one in 20 generates a sale, and that for maybe $1.20? That's a pay rate of a dollar an hour!

mojaric · « **Reply #69 on:** November 03, 2014, 03:27 »

well i don't have a super big portfolio but i think that with 1100 images i can say something....in the end, my first month with new istock was not that bad.
Regular donwloads are down for about 35%, but $ earned are almost same as July which was one of my good months this year....so i still can't regret nothing.... Will wait for PP to make a statement

Digital66 · « **Reply #70 on:** November 14, 2014, 17:54 »

Posted by Lobo at http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364161&page=1
"the majority of the feedback we have received has been positive."

HAH!
HAHA!
HAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!

gostwyck · « **Reply #71 on:** November 14, 2014, 19:23 »

Quote from: Digital66 on November 14, 2014, 17:54

Posted by Lobo at http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364161&page=1
"the majority of the feedback we have received has been positive."

HAH!
HAHA!
HAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!

It was utterly crazy that Istock didn't provide the option of a cheaper small/medium resolution image purchase for such buyers. They seem to be trying to copy SS yet have clearly excluded a good number of existing buyers by not doing so __ because SS do provide such an option.

KB · « **Reply #72 on:** November 14, 2014, 20:20 »

Quote from: Digital66 on November 14, 2014, 17:54

Posted by Lobo at http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364161&page=1
"the majority of the feedback we have received has been positive."

HAH!
HAHA!
HAHAHA!
HAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHA!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!

It's too bad the feedback they get is apparently only from inside their own organization, rather than from real buyers and sellers. Because there is no doubt at all from my perspective that the most recent changes have been an unmitigated disaster.

But I'm curious; if that buyer has been a customer for 19 years, are they referring to Getty, then, and not IS? (Or maybe it was a typo, meant to be a '10'.)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

How has overall DL Income on IS been with the new changes?

Author Topic: First Month of the New Improved IS (Read 17648 times)

Uncle Pete

Uncle Pete

cuppacoffee

Dook

JKB

Uncle Pete

JKB

Uncle Pete

Uncle Pete

stock-will-eat-itself

Uncle Pete

Uncle Pete

Buffalo Bill

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors