Author Topic: How Are Your iStock Sales? (Read 14868 times)

Pickerell · « **on:** February 25, 2015, 10:52 »

I understand that Getty Images has told bond investors that Q4 2014 revenue for its Midstock division (iStock, Thinkstock and Photos.com) was 15% lower than Q4 2013 revenue, despite its September efforts to simplify and lower iStock prices in order to attract more customers. Previously they had reported that Q3 2014 was down 10% compared to Q3 2013.

Are your iStock sales down more or less than the figures Getty is reporting? Or are you one of fortunate few whose revenue is steadily rising?

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #1 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:27 »

IS amount of return per DL Credit Sales IS, is up. PP and Subs no change. (or is that, only spare change?) Total monthly earnings are up for me since the change to the new system.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #2 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:32 »

Svcks for vector artists, since our prices were slashed. Credit sales continue to drop, subs not yet making up for the difference. On the rare occasion when I sell a photo I do make slightly more, though.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #3 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:38 »

I have only token files left at iStock, so I have nothing personal to share, but I hear chat from a number of current exclusives - and some graphs with trends over time although not specific numbers - and they'd see 15% lower as an improvement for them

Some are still getting some decent money from the files submitted via iStock and sold at Getty, apparently. Words like "sales have fallen off a cliff" keep coming up...

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #4 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:39 »

The monthly sales discussion should tell you all you need to know:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=365235&page=1

jefftakespics2 · « **Reply #5 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:40 »

I don't earn much from IS, but last couple months sales have been up by quite a bit. Not sure why.

mynameis · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2015, 11:49 »

Q3 was down 29% for me while Q4 was down "only" 19%

StanRohrer · « **Reply #7 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:16 »

For me, dollars: Q3 down 18.5%. Q4 down 24%.

tickstock · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:18 »

Is this about collecting information from us so that you can try to sell it back to us?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #9 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:54 »

Well, we told them what was going to happen when they announced that they were "revaluing" the credits, didn't we? Some may have been able to get files cheaper than before, but those who usually bought one-credit files suddenly found they were being ripped off. You didn't need an MBA to see where that was going to lead. But maybe you needed an MBA to be completely out of touch with reality and to think it was all a good idea that would bring in heaps more "sustainability".

bunhill · « **Reply #10 on:** February 25, 2015, 12:58 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 25, 2015, 12:54

Well, we told them ... etc

It may not suit many of us but the strategy likely makes sense in the context of Getty likely moving towards an IPO.

Digital66 · « **Reply #11 on:** February 25, 2015, 13:08 »

Quote from: Pickerell on February 25, 2015, 10:52

I understand that Getty Images has told bond investors that Q4 2014 revenue for its Midstock division (iStock, Thinkstock and Photos.com) was 15% lower than Q4 2013 revenue, despite its September efforts to simplify and lower iStock prices in order to attract more customers. Previously they had reported that Q3 2014 was down 10% compared to Q3 2013.

Are your iStock sales down more or less than the figures Getty is reporting? Or are you one of fortunate few whose revenue is steadily rising?

I have similar numbers. Q4 2014 was 17% lower than Q4 2013. (I'm talking about several thousand dollars!) And things are getting even worst now.

I guess this is the result of iStock opening the gates to millions of crappy images, more copycats, the introduction of subscriptions, and the stupid changes in credit sales made last September, among many other stupid decisions they've made in the last years.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #12 on:** February 25, 2015, 13:08 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 25, 2015, 12:58

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 25, 2015, 12:54
Well, we told them ... etc

It may not suit many of us but the strategy likely makes sense in the context of Getty likely moving towards an IPO.

It's hard to see how adopting policies that make less money are going to help a flotation price - but I'm no business guru.

bunhill · « **Reply #13 on:** February 25, 2015, 13:26 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 25, 2015, 13:08

It's hard to see how adopting policies that make less money are going to help a flotation price

I would assume that a flotation price would potentially have little to do with what revenues were x years ago. Surely from the market perspective it will be about looking forward not back - eg in terms of their ability to grow over x quarters according to any of the potential measures of growth (subscribers, market share, footprint etc) . And at this point they can probably decide when to have that growth kick in.

At various iterations of the business they have talked about being prepared to cannibalize the existing model and I think we can assume that they have more changes to implement yet - including, I would guess, pricing.

We might not be enjoying the ride but from their point of view it is probably shaping out quite nicely assuming that nothing nasty happens on the markets.

hatman12 · « **Reply #14 on:** February 25, 2015, 19:07 »

This situation was predictable - it's just a question of simple maths. In September they reduced the prices of all the E+, S+ and Vetta files by up to 80%. Before, customers were happily paying high prices for those files. After September they could get those same files for just 20% of the price. This wasn't a reason for customers to buy more files - they just continued buying but at vastly reduced prices. Anyone could have forseen what that would mean for iStock's gross revenue.

Non-exclusive file prices were increased slightly, but that just wasn't enough to compensate for the massive price reductions in the exclusive collection.

At the same time customers were being encouraged to switch to subscriptions. Now, instead of paying up to $100 for a Vetta, that entire Vetta collection is now available at subscription prices.

This combination of events, coupled with lack of marketing, has resulted in iStock's annual gross revenue falling by up to $50 million. Moody's had already reported that iStock's gross revenue fell 7% over the twelve months to October 2014, amounting to circa $20 million. So the changes implemented over the past couple of years have basically reduced iStock's gross revenue by circa $70 million (educated guesswork). This at a time when Shutterstock's gross revenue has been increasing by 40% per annum.

Now the ratings agencies will be seriously considering cutting Getty's debt to junk status, putting tremendous pressure on Getty to somehow recover the lost revenue. They won't so that by increased marketing spend, because that will further damage profits in the short term. The only other alternative is to continue to reduce costs and payments to suppliers. This does not bode well for exclusives because the obvious place to cut is the 30% and 40% exclusive commissions. And the $2.50 subscription payments for the old E+, S+ and Vetta files. With deteriorating financials, it cannot be justified to pay out $2.50 to a supplier when a perfectly good non-exclusive image pays only $0.28 (ten times less).

Further best match changes to give greater exposure to non-exclusive files should be expected.

Despite all these things, iStock and Thinkstock still generate gross revenue in the $250 to $300 million range, which makes them a significant force in the industry, second to Shutterstock at $350 million. I think the outlook for non-exclusives is quite good, with the probability of rising sales (and income) over the next couple of years, not from expansion of the business but from best match shifts and increased subscription exposure. At the same time the outlook for exclusives seems to be dire.

I handed in my crown at the turn of the year. I had an excellent run at istock over several years as an exclusive, but I think the best opportunities there will be as a non-exclusive in the future.

KB · « **Reply #15 on:** February 25, 2015, 20:14 »

^^ Best summary to date of the iStock / Getty debacle of Sep '14.

hatman12 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 25, 2015, 23:46 »

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-25/getty-images-bonds-plunge-after-fourth-quarter-earnings-decline

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-25/carlyle-s-getty-images-said-to-run-tight-on-cash-as-profit-drops

Hobostocker · « **Reply #17 on:** February 26, 2015, 00:27 »

they can only blame themselves for destroying the market.

oversupply is just one of the problems, not THE problem.
the real problem is the microstock model itself, first they kill RM agencies selling similar images for a pittance, then because of cut-throat competition they slash prices even more and finally as a last desperate move they sell Subs.

instead they should make a "cartel" like in any other industry and fix prices 10x higher and scr-ew the buyers once and for all.

as long as Stock is cheaper than assignments the buyers have NO WAY OUT and will KEEP buying just as anybody else has no word on the price of cigarettes, booze, food, cars, homes, whatever.

either that or we'll end up like musicians playing gigs for a few beers and earning a pittance with downloads and streaming royalties.

50% · « **Reply #18 on:** February 26, 2015, 02:51 »

Quote from: tickstock on February 25, 2015, 12:18

Is this about collecting information from us so that you can try to sell it back to us?

Odd statement nobody forces you to buy anything you expect to get paid for your work, why should journalistic work not get paid? If you wanna write an article you do research and ask questions that is the most normal process.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 26, 2015, 03:21 »

Not really why shouldn't people want to know what the information provided is to be used for - if its to be resold it may have a value

bunhill · « **Reply #20 on:** February 26, 2015, 05:00 »

Quote from: hatman12 on February 25, 2015, 19:07

At the same time customers were being encouraged to switch to subscriptions.

Investment analysts are very keen on subscribers these days.

dpimborough · « **Reply #21 on:** February 26, 2015, 06:18 »

So that explains iStock increasing it's payout schedules to once a month and paying on the 25th of the following month in a bid to hang on to cash flow.

Contributors will continue to get screw-d

bunhill · « **Reply #22 on:** February 26, 2015, 06:32 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on February 26, 2015, 06:18

So that explains iStock increasing it's payout schedules to once a month and paying on the 25th of the following month in a bid to hang on to cash flow.

How does that help cash flow ? Using the water (flow) analogy, the same amount is still coming through the pipe. Also - in any accounting, the money set aside for payments is already a liability.

ShadySue · « **Reply #23 on:** February 26, 2015, 06:35 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on February 26, 2015, 06:18

So that explains iStock increasing it's payout schedules to once a month and paying on the 25th of the following month in a bid to hang on to cash flow.

Contributors will continue to get screw-d

Oh, and there was me thinking it was a combination of saving pennies on the accounting and an admission that fewer people will be reaching weekly payouts.

dpimborough · « **Reply #24 on:** February 26, 2015, 07:00 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 26, 2015, 06:32

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on February 26, 2015, 06:18
So that explains iStock increasing it's payout schedules to once a month and paying on the 25th of the following month in a bid to hang on to cash flow.

How does that help cash flow ? Using the water (flow) analogy, the same amount is still coming through the pipe. Also - in any accounting, the money set aside for payments is already a liability.

A liability yes but explain why a large number of companies pay on extended terms or late?

The problem with Getty is a shortage of ready cash (liquidity) so the answer is hang on to the cash for as long as possible.

I've worked with accountants and in account departments where it common practice to take as long as possible to pay suppliers (anything up to 6 months)

"There are many reasons why a company would look to extend its payment terms with a supply base. First reason is extended terms increases a company's working capital, this happens by increasing the number of turns a company has on its investment before having to pay."

and

"Another benefit to receiving extended terms from the supply base is the perception of your company’s stability and supplier trust. Wall Street analysts review average payment terms as an indicator of a company's strength with its supply base, for example a weak or unstable company wouldn’t be able to get favorable payment terms."

Quoted from http://www.capgemini-consulting.com/blog/procurement-transformation-blog/2013/09/calculating-the-payment-term-benefit-from-the-cost-of

bunhill · « **Reply #25 on:** February 26, 2015, 07:23 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on February 26, 2015, 07:00

The problem with Getty is a shortage of ready cash (liquidity) so the answer is hang on to the cash for as long as possible.

Let's go back to the water through pipe flow analogy. The same amount is still coming out of the end. So it makes no difference.

But go ahead and vote me down again.

(I'm no fan of the way they have done things - but conspiracy theories don't get us anywhere)

dpimborough · « **Reply #26 on:** February 26, 2015, 07:28 »

And I bet that Getty et al only declare a liability on contributor earnings when the payouts become due.

So if a contributor has not reached a payout threshold then they would not declare it a liability.

Hanging on the cash also fulfills one of the simple liquidity tests

"The liquidity ratios are a result of dividing cash and other liquid assets by the short term borrowings and current liabilities. They show the number of times the short term debt obligations are covered by the cash and liquid assets. If the value is greater than 1, it means the short term obligations are fully covered."

Which would make the company appear healthy financially.

Or put another way

If all your customers get 30 day payment terms and you pay all your suppliers on 7 day payment terms then you would constantly run out of cash (negative cash flow).

Which then require you to borrow usually at high interest rates (simple example an overdraft).

Other assets such as property can not be readily converted (at least not quickly) and as a result the company would constantly find itself with out ready cash to pay salaries, utilities, rent and so on as well as the burden of financing short term borrowing.

dpimborough · « **Reply #27 on:** February 26, 2015, 07:28 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 26, 2015, 07:23

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on February 26, 2015, 07:00
The problem with Getty is a shortage of ready cash (liquidity) so the answer is hang on to the cash for as long as possible.

Let's go back to the water through pipe flow analogy. The same amount is still coming out of the end. So it makes no difference.

But go ahead and vote me down again.

(I'm no fan of the way they have done things - but conspiracy theories don't get us anywhere)

Didn't vote you down

And it's not a conspiracy theory it's just company accounting that's all.

The articles say all they need to say about the state of Getty finances.

As to your hose pipe analogy well yes that would work but only if finances were steady state i.e. you sell $1million per month and your payouts are $200,000 per month.

However sales peak and trough through the year so in high months you will get a lot of payout requests from contributors but then you may have to wait two or even three months for customers to pay their bills (and you can bet Getty corporate clients squeeze as much out of Getty for credit terms).

It's more akin to a rubber band being stretched and pulled.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #28 on:** February 26, 2015, 07:29 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 26, 2015, 07:23

But go ahead and vote me down again.

You are not being voted down, people just agree or disagree

Mantis · « **Reply #29 on:** February 26, 2015, 09:02 »

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on February 26, 2015, 06:18

So that explains iStock increasing it's payout schedules to once a month and paying on the 25th of the following month in a bid to hang on to cash flow.

Contributors will continue to get screw-d

I was wondering how to word this but you did a fine job.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #30 on:** February 26, 2015, 09:34 »

My earnings have actually stabilised for the first time in a couple of years, so maybe they have hit bottom and are now causing along.

redo · « **Reply #31 on:** February 26, 2015, 09:51 »

In dollars Q3 2014 was down 50% compared to Q3 2013 for me.
RPD Q3 2014 was down 75% compared to Q3 2013 for me.

In dollars Q3 2014 was down more than 80% compared to Q3 2009 for me.
RPD Q3 2014 was also down more than 80% compared to Q3 2009 for me.

But I don't upload new pics.
In 2009 istock-income was enough for my monthly fixed costs.

jjneff · « **Reply #32 on:** February 26, 2015, 09:58 »

Sales are stable for me with an increase in RPD for video. I like the changes iStock is making and hope for the best. My image sales are up and so is my sub sales on iStock

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #33 on:** February 26, 2015, 10:04 »

@hatman - good analysis, welcome back

cobalt · « **Reply #34 on:** February 26, 2015, 10:22 »

Yes, welcome back David, it is great to see you here.

i agree, I think the opportunities for non exclusives are now better than for exclusives, because you have the option to play all fields and give exclusive series to specialized agencies if you want to.

And yes, it is possible they will prefer indie content because it is cheaper, it would make sense financially.

However I would be interested in data on getty macro, I could imagine that all marketing efforts will be directed to their prime collections and getty itself at the expense of istock and thinkstock. I also wonder when they will close thinkstock. This would then be good for the exclusives, if all the thinkstock customers came to istock.

bunhill · « **Reply #35 on:** February 26, 2015, 10:55 »

Quote from: cobalt on February 26, 2015, 10:22

I could imagine that all marketing efforts will be directed to their prime collections and getty itself at the expense of istock and thinkstock.

Not if they are moving towards taking the company public. Which must surely be on the cards. Investors today like subscription models.

Nikovsk · « **Reply #36 on:** February 26, 2015, 11:03 »

How are my sales? Who knows until PP comes next month...

When are we getting payed, wasn't it supposed to be on the 25th?

cobalt · « **Reply #37 on:** February 26, 2015, 11:09 »

I sincerly doubt they could float getty with their history. Wallstreet needs a success story, this isn´t one. And their competitors are showing the world every day how to create growth.

No, another investor is more likely. If that doesn´t work, it will be split and sold in pieces, probably to the competition.

bunhill · « **Reply #38 on:** February 26, 2015, 11:52 »

Quote from: cobalt on February 26, 2015, 11:09

I sincerly doubt they could float getty with their history. Wallstreet needs a success story, this isn´t one. And their competitors are showing the world every day how to create growth.

No, another investor is more likely. If that doesn´t work, it will be split and sold in pieces, probably to the competition.

I firmly believe that everything indicates that they are positioning for an IPO exit. Hence the emphasis on subscription even probably at the expense of short term revenue.

Get everything working, cut costs and then slash subscription prices for growth is my bet. And don't forget that they have very significant revenue.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #39 on:** February 26, 2015, 12:33 »

There is a fundamental difference between subscriptions to software or services - things that you cannot easily switch because of workflows, tools, plugins, addons, etc. - and stock image subscriptions which you can switch any time because the images are fundamentally the same across the board.

Investors like the notion of revenues that are consistent over time and locking in customers to that company's product - that's why Wall St. has been happy with Adobe's CC changes. Getty/iStock subscriptions can be dumped any time the current term runs out with no costs of switching or any hassle to the customer.

Without some success story Getty can spin - and I don't see anything anywhere in their latest financials that looks even vaguely like success - all they have is assets (mostly in archive content they either own or have exclusive rights to for a while). I can't see any hope of an IPO.

Digital66 · « **Reply #40 on:** February 26, 2015, 13:02 »

Quote from: Nikovsk on February 26, 2015, 11:03

How are my sales? Who knows until PP comes next month...

Subscription sales volume is too low to make a real difference to the whole month. I would need a huge number of subscription sales to earn what I used to just a year ago.

ShadySue · « **Reply #41 on:** February 26, 2015, 13:20 »

Quote from: Nikovsk on February 26, 2015, 11:03

How are my sales? Who knows until PP comes next month...

You know how you did in January, and you know how credit sales are doing in February.

Quote

When are we getting payed, wasn't it supposed to be on the 25th?

Today, tomorrow, sometime ...
I was lucky and got mine within iStock's 25th Feb, if not mine.
But there are plenty of reports of people still waiting.
Don't worry, they're "incredibly embarrassed" (which doesn't pay the bills).
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364059&messageid=7086455
I wonder if they had the people who caused the problem working serious overtime to resolve this and pay when they promised to (remembering they had three weeks to process payments), or whether they just closed at or near normal time and said "mañana".

PixelBytes · « **Reply #42 on:** February 26, 2015, 13:28 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 26, 2015, 13:20

Quote from: Nikovsk on February 26, 2015, 11:03
How are my sales? Who knows until PP comes next month...

You know how you did in January, and you know how credit sales are doing in February.

Quote
When are we getting payed, wasn't it supposed to be on the 25th?

Today, tomorrow, sometime ...
I was lucky and got mine within iStock's 25th Feb, if not mine.
But there are plenty of reports of people still waiting.
Don't worry, they're "incredibly embarrassed" (which doesn't pay the bills).
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=364059&messageid=7086455
I wonder if they had the people who caused the problem working serious overtime to resolve this and pay when they promised to (remembering they had three weeks to process payments), or whether they just closed at or near normal time and said "mañana".

Some have not yet been paid!? I guess I will count myself lucky to get my pitiful couple hundred $ on the 25th!

bunhill · « **Reply #43 on:** February 26, 2015, 13:37 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 26, 2015, 12:33

I can't see any hope of an IPO ...

... where as I can see no other reason for all of the changes over the past 2-3 years. To me, the whole strategy seems to point in that direction. Also - I cannot imagine what other outcome they would want. Though before they get there I would expect further significant changes. And I would expect them to get very aggressive about pricing sooner or later too.

It will be exciting and interesting to see which of us is right. They have good revenues and strong brand. And they are clearly half way through transforming it into a completely different business.

Freedom · « **Reply #44 on:** February 26, 2015, 14:35 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 26, 2015, 13:37

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 26, 2015, 12:33
I can't see any hope of an IPO ...

... where as I can see no other reason for all of the changes over the past 2-3 years. To me, the whole strategy seems to point in that direction. Also - I cannot imagine what other outcome they would want. Though before they get there I would expect further significant changes. And I would expect them to get very aggressive about pricing sooner or later too.

It will be exciting and interesting to see which of us is right. They have good revenues and strong brand. And they are clearly half way through transforming it into a completely different business.

As an exclusive, I wish I could share your optimism and enthusiasm. The fact is that Getty has substantially eroded their core support from buyers and suppliers esp. exclusives in the past few years by introducing constant changes detrimental to us. It seems no promised can be kept for long, and no strategic move has been proven successful.

IMHO, they need stability and build up good-will. If they continue to act recklessly, a strong brand cannot save its demise. I don't wish to see this, because it's not in my interest.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #45 on:** February 26, 2015, 14:50 »

Quote from: Freedom on February 26, 2015, 14:35

...IMHO, they need stability and build up good-will. If they continue to act recklessly, a strong brand cannot save its demise. I don't wish to see this, because it's not in my interest.

I wouldn't have left exclusivity but for the start of the cascade of bad things brought about by Hellman & Friedman turning the screws on Getty who in turn started down the long road that's led them to here.

My best guess as to what they will end up doing is the various pieces of the company will be split up and sold for whatever they can get. Sadly, I think the part of the Getty business that's been hurt the worst by all of this is iStock, and I can't imagine who'd want to buy it given its damaged state.

Site performance generally stinks, the CV is a boat anchor around the collection's neck, the collection has been polluted by masses of dreck at high prices, many long time buyers are P.O.'d at the recent (Sept '14) changes. I can't imagine the software running the site is much of an asset (given how things regularly break every time a change is introduced).

The site's name is worth something, and if a reputable outfit purchased it, dumped the Getty hand-me-downs, fixed up the site and came up with sane pricing and decent royalties for independents, I think they could turn things around. I'd contribute again as long as Getty had nothing whatever to do with the management of the site and it wasn't a private equity firm that bought it. The buyer would have to really want to make a go of the project long term - it wouldn't be a quick fixer upper and another sale.

hatman12 · « **Reply #46 on:** February 26, 2015, 15:33 »

Forget the stuff about selling iStock as an IPO. More and more of iStock's core services have been integrated into Getty, including now the monthly payments to suppliers. Istock's catalog is awash with Getty assets, duplicated at Thinkstock, and with millions of assets for sale at Getty's main site. You can't sell a business that is an integrated part of the parent.

Getty clearly has to find some assets to sell. But does it actually own anything that is saleable?

No - the most likely outlook is to continue to cut costs and reduce payments to suppliers. Istock has been reregistered as a US business, more and more of it's functions have been transferred to Getty, and everything points to shutting down Calgary this year or next. That isn't a business that can be sold. And who would want to buy it with revenues falling 17% in the last quarter? Investors want to buy growth opportunities, not flagging businesses.

bunhill · « **Reply #47 on:** February 26, 2015, 15:42 »

Quote from: Freedom on February 26, 2015, 14:35

As an exclusive, I wish I could share your optimism and enthusiasm.

From a contributor perspective I am not expressing either optimism or enthusiasm. My interest and enthusiasm relates to story itself.

Quote from: Freedom on February 26, 2015, 14:35

IMHO, they need stability etc

I do not believe that there can be any stability in this market until after this inevitable evolution from primarily selling pictures to primarily selling services.

We need to keep remembering that they have at various stages talked about being prepared to cannibalize their own business. And they have previously been good at knowing where the market is going and focusing on that.

Quote from: hatman12 on February 26, 2015, 15:33

Forget the stuff about selling iStock as an IPO.

The whole of Getty. Not iStock.

KB · « **Reply #48 on:** February 26, 2015, 22:27 »

Quote from: hatman12 on February 26, 2015, 15:33

No - the most likely outlook is to continue to cut costs

So their next bright idea will be to reduce payments to "suppliers"?

That probably means 15% indies / 25% exclusives (or worse). That'd definitely be the last straw on the camel's back.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #49 on:** February 27, 2015, 01:38 »

Quote from: bunhill on February 26, 2015, 07:23

Quote from: Teddy the Cat on February 26, 2015, 07:00
The problem with Getty is a shortage of ready cash (liquidity) so the answer is hang on to the cash for as long as possible.

Let's go back to the water through pipe flow analogy. The same amount is still coming out of the end. So it makes no difference.

But it's a longer pipe, so it's holding more water and coming out in a different place. That's increased the amount of liquid-ity. The length of the pipe is equivalent to time in this equation.

You only benefit once from extending the pipe. But it does mean an insolvent company could continue trading for longer (not that I'm saying iStock is about to go bust).

Digital66 · « **Reply #50 on:** February 27, 2015, 21:33 »

Quote from: jjneff on February 26, 2015, 09:58

Sales are stable for me with an increase in RPD for video. I like the changes iStock is making and hope for the best. My image sales are up and so is my sub sales on iStock

Really? Your comments on sales at iStock during the last quarter of 2014 were not so positive:

September Sales
"Down a lot from last year but up from August. Time will tell with these changes"
October Sales
"This is a bad trend! For me average nothing amazing nothing awful. For the amount of content I have produced this year I am not happy with sales."
November Sales
"Very bad month on the video side! photo was average and the month as a whole was well below 2013 which was a horrible year for me."
December sales
"A normally low Dec. asu usual, I need Getty sales to draw my final conclusion now. iStock alone was a low average."

And January 2015 Sales
"Nothing to really say on the video side, very average and low. Most troubling is 7 days with zero sales. Here is hoping Getty is better but not holding my breath."

I just can't understand you...

PixelBytes · « **Reply #51 on:** February 28, 2015, 00:33 »

Quote from: Digital66 on February 27, 2015, 21:33

Quote from: jjneff on February 26, 2015, 09:58
Sales are stable for me with an increase in RPD for video. I like the changes iStock is making and hope for the best. My image sales are up and so is my sub sales on iStock
Really? Your comments on sales at iStock during the last quarter of 2014 were not so positive:

September Sales
"Down a lot from last year but up from August. Time will tell with these changes"
October Sales
"This is a bad trend! For me average nothing amazing nothing awful. For the amount of content I have produced this year I am not happy with sales."
November Sales
"Very bad month on the video side! photo was average and the month as a whole was well below 2013 which was a horrible year for me."
December sales
"A normally low Dec. asu usual, I need Getty sales to draw my final conclusion now. iStock alone was a low average."

And January 2015 Sales
"Nothing to really say on the video side, very average and low. Most troubling is 7 days with zero sales. Here is hoping Getty is better but not holding my breath."

I just can't understand you...

Copidosoma · « **Reply #52 on:** February 28, 2015, 07:36 »

my istock sales have been extremely consistent... since i closed my account there last year. Even when it was active, sales weren't much higher. Small fish syndrome I guess.

Reading the sales threads and the changes which have happened there (and the lack of change in the sales thread) make me very glad i got out of that abusive relationship. I feel a bit bad for the crowns over there.

Lizard · « **Reply #53 on:** February 28, 2015, 09:01 »

They were playing their moves and acting like a fly with diarrhea in the game where main opponent was mostly just observing.

I really feel their biggest problem is that they are running out of moves and they cannot allow them self to turn in the single one possible direction
which could benefit all because its a long term one.

They are heating that boat with the boards from the deck, yap its a big big boat...but they need a big fire to keep it warm.

enstoker · « **Reply #54 on:** February 28, 2015, 11:05 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on February 28, 2015, 00:33

Quote from: Digital66 on February 27, 2015, 21:33
Quote from: jjneff on February 26, 2015, 09:58
Sales are stable for me with an increase in RPD for video. I like the changes iStock is making and hope for the best. My image sales are up and so is my sub sales on iStock
Really? Your comments on sales at iStock during the last quarter of 2014 were not so positive:

September Sales
"Down a lot from last year but up from August. Time will tell with these changes"
October Sales
"This is a bad trend! For me average nothing amazing nothing awful. For the amount of content I have produced this year I am not happy with sales."
November Sales
"Very bad month on the video side! photo was average and the month as a whole was well below 2013 which was a horrible year for me."
December sales
"A normally low Dec. asu usual, I need Getty sales to draw my final conclusion now. iStock alone was a low average."

And January 2015 Sales
"Nothing to really say on the video side, very average and low. Most troubling is 7 days with zero sales. Here is hoping Getty is better but not holding my breath."

I just can't understand you...

And everything was quiet....

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #55 on:** February 28, 2015, 15:40 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 26, 2015, 12:33

Investors like the notion of revenues that are consistent over time and locking in customers to that company's product - that's why Wall St. has been happy with Adobe's CC changes. Getty/iStock subscriptions can be dumped any time the current term runs out with no costs of switching or any hassle to the customer.

Not only no hassle to the customer, but an actual benefit if the content elsewhere is different enough, or comes in package that is more attractive or easier to access.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #56 on:** February 28, 2015, 15:42 »

It will make no difference to how iStock operates or whether they are successful or not, but I closed my account out last month. The price of video is far too low to be sustainable. They could never triple sales volumes just to maintain an even cash flow. Whoever piloted that wreck should be put out to pasture.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #57 on:** February 28, 2015, 17:20 »

Just took a quick look at my sales history. Still exclusive at the moment. January total combined sales were half of the peak back in mid 2013. Regular sales revenue is 1/3 of peak. Getty E+ sales revenue is 1/3 of peak. Subscription sales are way up from 2013 but only enough to bump the overall loss from 1/3 to 1/2 of peak.

It has been a shell game really. Sales downloads have been falling for the past few years masked by price increases. My regular sales used to be strong. When regular sales started dropping, E+ made up for the loss and my sales revenue stayed the same. When downloads started dropping, regular price increases made up for the loss and my sales revenue stayed the same. When they could no longer raise prices and downloads continued to drop, my sales revenue dropped.

I said a while ago that if this trend continued it would only be a matter of time before they ran out of options to prop up prices to offset falling downloads. We reached that point with this new subs deal and it hasn't worked well for me.

jjneff · « **Reply #58 on:** February 28, 2015, 19:21 »

Just so you know my sales for Feb. are down! very disappointed with my earnings for Feb.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #59 on:** March 01, 2015, 00:05 »

Quote from: jjneff on February 28, 2015, 19:21

Just so you know my sales for Feb. are down! very disappointed with my earnings for Feb.

Judging from the above quotes this seems to be a consistent pattern. Don't feel bad. It is happening with mostly everyone on IS.

SnowDog · « **Reply #60 on:** March 01, 2015, 16:16 »

My Feb Regular sales were up considerably from January, and down considerably from Feb. 2014. I feel like a frog in a pot of water on a stove top.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #61 on:** March 01, 2015, 18:46 »

Quote from: SnowDog on March 01, 2015, 16:16

My Feb Regular sales were up considerably from January, and down considerably from Feb. 2014. I feel like a frog in a pot of water on a stove top.

Ribbit

Mantis · « **Reply #62 on:** March 01, 2015, 22:14 »

Istock, overall, was deflated. Each month getting lower by a tad. $160. To put this into perspective, I used to make easily $500 a month there, sometimes more. The simplest way I can put this is that crowdsourcing has killed the industry for most of us. It will only get worse.

As an aside, was up this month on SS by $300 over normal. Thanks to lousy sales everywhere else, though, I exceeded my monthly average by only $100.

Some notable achievements:

Stockfresh: $3.80
Alamy: $90 before my cut: $26 after thanks to distributor sales.
GL: $1.60

Red On · « **Reply #63 on:** March 06, 2015, 08:33 »

Oh, this was the BME for me on IS: 1 picture sold only, but for 40 USD. Last month was zero. I have a very small portfolio on IS, because I can't loose time uploading and doing all they want for a percentage near the slavery.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How Are Your iStock Sales? (Read 14868 times)

Uncle Pete

dpimborough

dpimborough

dpimborough

dpimborough

Semmick Photo

stock-will-eat-itself

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors