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:


 

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.

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.

Very steady in decline

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.