pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Five days without a sale  (Read 23528 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: November 04, 2008, 13:49 »
0
Siriously  ;)


« Reply #51 on: November 04, 2008, 15:21 »
0

Serius is the brightest star in the night sky with a visual apparent magnitude of −1.47, almost twice as bright as Dreamstime, the next brightest star. The name Serius is derived from the Ancient Greek Σεριος. What the naked eye perceives as a single star is actually a binary star system, consisting of a white main sequence star of spectral type A1V, termed Serius Exclusives, and a faint white dwarf companion of spectral type DA2, termed Serius Serfs.  ::)

Who are you and what did you do with Flemish?

traveler1116

« Reply #52 on: November 05, 2008, 00:49 »
0

I guess I'm thinking which is the bigger waste: uploading marginal files which increases the likelihood of using up rare upload slots for files that will be rejected, or uploading your best work increasing the chance of approval and increasing the chance of standing out amongst others in the search results (albeit, other non-exclusives)? They've done away with the boost for new files in the best match sort, but a lot of designers have stated that they are more likely to use the age sort (myself included) and who's to say that boost is going to come back later?


But if your plan makes sense to you, then by all mean, stick to it.



I think I may need to rethink uploading anything here now, two weeks to get files reviewed!!   This site is just getting worse and worse every week.

« Reply #53 on: November 05, 2008, 01:18 »
0
I know I might be biting myself in the foot, but here is the graph from an exclusive that doesn't have a big porfolio and doesn't upload much. In August I uploaded a few photos and it helped because of the bias toward new photos. I already had a record BME in Sept. before the newest change in the best match.


traveler1116

« Reply #54 on: November 05, 2008, 01:27 »
0
It's obviously great for exclusives, you do have a small portfolio so it's pretty hard to tell too much from it though I doubt going exclusive would make sales go up 5x for me.  And even if they did I would just break even and be very vulnerable to the next best match change.  Good luck though.

« Reply #55 on: November 05, 2008, 03:08 »
0
It's obviously great for exclusives, you do have a small portfolio so it's pretty hard to tell too much from it though I doubt going exclusive would make sales go up 5x for me.  And even if they did I would just break even and be very vulnerable to the next best match change.  Good luck though.
Well I wasn't trying to convince anyone to go exclusive because I really can't given the constant changing of the best match. I was just trying to give people what little perspective (given my portfolio) I can.

LaoKao

  • It's kinda hard to teach an old dog new tricks
« Reply #56 on: November 05, 2008, 05:19 »
0
No sales might the result of economic slowdown. Am experiencing a drastic drop in sales of almost half in comparison with the month of January. Businesses are cutting back or scale down on advertising, promotions and marketing. Image buyers could have switch to cheaper sites for similar photos. Let's hope the economy will recover soon  :)

lagereek

« Reply #57 on: November 05, 2008, 05:37 »
0
I can't say no sales, but sales are literally half what they were the beginning of October and end of September and getting worse every day. 

This is normally the busiest time of the year but my sales are below "summer slump" levels.  Only on istock, though.  Everywhere else is doing well. 


Hi Lisa! fancy bumping into you here?

Sales down? yep  Out of the 5 sites I work with, IStock is now number 3, in earnings that is. It was number 1 for over two years. Site is getting bad, no doubt. I recon it goes deeper than this, theres gotta to be some internal politics problem or something. Hiding behind Getty wont help either. Getty is heavy business, IS are still nursing their newbies.
Lisa! youve got my personal mail, with your kind of imagery there are other avenues then just IS and similar. I love IS as well but really! nowdays its like flogging a dead horse and its not much better for the majority of their exclusives either. Besides theyre gaining a bad rep among certain buyers and thats the beginning of the downhill.

all the best  Chris

« Reply #58 on: November 05, 2008, 08:31 »
0
October was ok for me but November started off really bad I hope sales  will pick up soon  in other words I do  hope they will switch the best match algorithm back ,it is a shame this is happening in a supposedly busy season.

lisafx

« Reply #59 on: November 05, 2008, 09:30 »
0
Hi Chris!  Great to see you here :D
I just dropped you an e-mail.

« Reply #60 on: November 11, 2008, 23:45 »
0
Well, I've been selling (non-exclusive) on istock for years, and in the last two years I've just had a super gnawing feeling in my gut that their ultimate goal is to have a completely "exclusive" site.  That is, they WANT to one day be able to advertise to clients - "All of our contributors are exclusive to istock only!".   The problem is, they're still loading up on money made from nonexc sales to completely igore them (yet).  It still wouldn't shock me if within a year they do tell contributors though to, "Go exclusive, or leave".   Of course, they'll find that many won't put up with it and they WILL leave, but by then they'll have so many exclusives signed up they won't care.   It's just one of those "not if but when" type of scenerios.

I would have gone exclusive with them long ago had it not been for that one tiny little fine print item in their contract that says that even if they reject an image, you can't sell that rejected image elsewhere.  I have no problem selling a set of images through them and only through them.  But if they reject an image, it should be a free agent and I should then be able to sell that one via other outlets to make revenue off of it if I deem fit to do so.  Since I can't - then they will never get my stuff as an exclusive seller.  I'd rather have the ability to sell what I want anywhere than have someone tell me I'm not even allowed to use my rejects the way I want.

dbvirago

« Reply #61 on: November 12, 2008, 07:02 »
0
They have been sinking steadily since my BME in March - now 1/3d of that.

« Reply #62 on: November 12, 2008, 07:19 »
0
My last sale was on 05-11-08!
7 days without sales :(

« Reply #63 on: November 12, 2008, 07:25 »
0
yesterday I had a zero downloads day ,which I never expected to happen on IS especially on  a business day. :(

« Reply #64 on: November 14, 2008, 01:28 »
0
what I don't get is this: They've changed the best match last week of October, and my sales have remained steady, then all of a sudden around November 6th, they dropped to almost nothing, although views are coming in at the same rate as before. Did they remove the "buy" options from my images on that date ??  ;D ;) (non-exclusive here only contributing for the past 8 months)

shank_ali

« Reply #65 on: November 21, 2008, 11:49 »
0
Bigger library means more choice for the designers/buyer.More choice means less sales for a few contributors.Try to use the shotgun approach..diversify and build your portfolio.
It's a war zone you no and i was happy at the start to feed of the scraps but now i want  more and i will achieve my personnel aims in a couple of years.

« Reply #66 on: November 21, 2008, 11:59 »
0
Well, I've been selling (non-exclusive) on istock for years, and in the last two years I've just had a super gnawing feeling in my gut that their ultimate goal is to have a completely "exclusive" site.  That is, they WANT to one day be able to advertise to clients - "All of our contributors are exclusive to istock only!".   The problem is, they're still loading up on money made from nonexc sales to completely igore them (yet).  It still wouldn't shock me if within a year they do tell contributors though to, "Go exclusive, or leave".   Of course, they'll find that many won't put up with it and they WILL leave, but by then they'll have so many exclusives signed up they won't care.   It's just one of those "not if but when" type of scenerios.

I would have gone exclusive with them long ago had it not been for that one tiny little fine print item in their contract that says that even if they reject an image, you can't sell that rejected image elsewhere.  I have no problem selling a set of images through them and only through them.  But if they reject an image, it should be a free agent and I should then be able to sell that one via other outlets to make revenue off of it if I deem fit to do so.  Since I can't - then they will never get my stuff as an exclusive seller.  I'd rather have the ability to sell what I want anywhere than have someone tell me I'm not even allowed to use my rejects the way I want.

I think you're wrong about the exact meaning of this "fine-print". I remember reading in the IS forums that the meaning is tht "you can't sell rejected files at other RF venues", but that you could do it RM. But I'm talking by heart, best way to know is to ask support through Contributor Relations.

About this "Go exclusive or leave", I think that will not happen, at least in the near future. It's just my opinion.

lisafx

« Reply #67 on: November 21, 2008, 19:05 »
0

About this "Go exclusive or leave", I think that will not happen, at least in the near future. It's just my opinion.

I agree.  I don't see that as a practical stance for them to take.  Maybe years ago when they were super dominant in the industry, but over the last year istock has fallen steadily as a proportion of most non-exclusive's incomes.

If istock had laid out an ultimatum two years ago when they were nearly 50% of my sales, I would have had to seriously consider it.  Now with them at 34% and steadily dropping I would not even consider such a move. 

But then, as the old saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar", and vinegar seems to be what they are offering lately.

« Reply #68 on: November 21, 2008, 20:01 »
0
But then, as the old saying goes, "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar", and vinegar seems to be what they are offering lately.

Yes, a very apt homily. IS is leaving a bitter taste in many mouths. I wonder what has gotten into them. Non-exclusives feel that IS hates them, exclusives with small portfolios feel that IS hates them, vector illustrators feel that IS hates them... Threads with honest complaints are locked with little explanation except, "This is the way it is, accept it. Nothing is wrong and maybe we will fix it someday, or not."

I stopped uploading vectors to IS a couple weeks ago.  I won't go into why. My complaints only echo those posted by scores of illustrators, before the complaint thread was locked. I tried submitting some as raster illstrations, which is technically allowed. One was rejected because it was "an overfiltered photo". Although it is clearly an illustration, with 'vector' and 'clip art' in the keywords. Appealing to scout is a joke.

Oh well, I will try not to think about my lost IS revenues, and stick with those sites still offering honey.

vonkara

« Reply #69 on: November 21, 2008, 21:48 »
0
My last sale was on 05-11-08!
7 days without sales :(
Wow! Looking at your portfolio I can say that 7 days is very long. How it goes since your post???

« Reply #70 on: November 21, 2008, 22:05 »
0
Yes, my impression is that Istock wants to get rid of non-exclusives. Waiting time for acceptance are dreadful - and then they manage to reject 70% of submitted images. Initially I tried to be more careful with focus/sharpening/postprocessing (because they used to have a point in most rejection cases, and I admit that I was at fault) - but not any more. Makes no point - as they manage to reject images which sell well anywhere else (and they are not "overfiltered" or "oversharpened" - simply because in most cases nothing had been done except converting from RAW with default settings). So, I do not worry excessively about IStock. If they accept some images - fine, if some of them sell - fine. There are other sites which sell better and are willing to take my pics.

« Reply #71 on: November 21, 2008, 22:20 »
0
IS is a shadow of its former self as far as my images are concerned. Since the disambu thing, what, nearly two years ago?....my sales there have dropped way down there and have yet to come up to even 50% of what they were. As I recall that was also when they were really pushing for exclusive status. I posted to all the blogs then that I believed that the end game was "Totally Exclusive" images. I still think that way. I believe that there is an internal bias toward exclusives in some way, beyond the approval advantage and the commission rates. If I were them I'd do the same thing in order to offer AND PRICE the images as exclusive.

AVAVA

« Reply #72 on: November 21, 2008, 23:15 »
0
 Hi All,

 This subject just keeps coming up here and it still seems to have not been made clear to some. Istocks Exclusive contract will not allow you to distribute ANY other RF work through ANY other distributor but Getty. Not the similars, not even entirely new shoots. You could fly to Egypt and shoot a camel drinking from a water cooler in the middle of the desert and if you wanted to put that image into Corbis RF you cannot do so. Even if you never gave a single Camel photo to Istock or Getty.

 Before Istocks building of this new contract photographers could sell their work ( as long as it was a different shoot and theme ) with any RF company they wanted giving them more strength in their own companies diversity. Now with the Istock contract you have to put all your work under one roof making it more limiting than ever before for photographers security.

 This keeps the older RF people out of signing an exclusive contract for Istock. if you were one of the many that built the RF industry in the first place. The people that actually built your RF model and created it with their own investment and hard work these are the ones that have been pushed out of the exclusive picture by Istock. Think about that people. Do you really believe that will never occur again when it already has occurred with the people that own Istock.

Just something to think about,
AVAVA

« Reply #73 on: November 22, 2008, 03:33 »
0
When an employer wants to fire employees, the best solution is to play with their nerves to force them to quit...  :-\

« Reply #74 on: November 22, 2008, 04:34 »
0
Chart says it all:



IS is dead cow this month since they changed something...

123rf and StockXpert are doing better than IS.

I stopped uploading any more, until I see some improvements.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2853 Views
Last post March 03, 2008, 23:46
by vonkara
45 Replies
20007 Views
Last post April 10, 2008, 20:46
by RGebbiePhoto
16 Replies
5870 Views
Last post July 02, 2009, 06:59
by ShadySue
7 Replies
2994 Views
Last post March 12, 2013, 16:09
by rubyroo
2 Replies
1554 Views
Last post June 20, 2020, 09:25
by aitor

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle