Author Topic: How do you feel about IStock? (Read 48725 times)

SNP · « **Reply #75 on:** December 13, 2011, 00:05 »

Quote from: briciola on December 12, 2011, 21:31

Quote from: SNP on December 12, 2011, 17:30
JoAnn - what is your point? I apologize for missing the size of the portfolio on SS and DT...but you're just splitting hairs. My point is exactly the same. How can morphart give advice concerning lost IS income to SS gain-with JUST 17 files on iStock?

I certainly wish sodafish the best but I wouldn't expect income to be made up anytime soon.
Sorry we can't all be as amazing as you...oh, didn't you get excluded from some Getty inclusion because (as JJ said) you didn't work hard enough? Let he who cast the first stone...

^^ yuri is and always has been independent. you're comparing apples to oranges. I'm talking simply about 'replacing' iStock income with SS income. not whether iStock is falling and SS isn't.

@ briciola: the fact remains that having an opinion about what may or may not happen to your iStock income after dropping exclusivity requires experience of more than 17 uploads. even if you have 50K on the other sites. I think sodafish is entirely justified and I understand the reason for dropping the crown. but I think it will be very difficult to make up the income. I would be happy to be wrong. it would be good to see viable competitive sales avenues to iStock exclusivity.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #76 on:** December 13, 2011, 01:35 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on December 12, 2011, 21:19

Quote from: SNP on December 12, 2011, 17:30
JoAnn - what is your point? I apologize for missing the size of the portfolio on SS and DT...but you're just splitting hairs. My point is exactly the same. How can morphart give advice concerning lost IS income to SS gain-with JUST 17 files on iStock?

I certainly wish sodafish the best but I wouldn't expect income to be made up anytime soon.

Look, Yuri reported an overall sales decline with losses on Istock that were not covered by increasing "low value subscpirition sales" on SS. You don't need to look at anyone else considering Yuri has the best statistical sample out there. If he is down, no "big guy/gal" is up. End of story.

Cnbc.com just had a story on DVD sales. They reported declining yearly sales in terms of $$$$ because of low value subscription sales that was lowing the price per use. Sure sounds like SS vs istock to me.

That still doesn't say anything about whether sodafish will be able to regain his lost iStock commission % with the revenue from sales at SS, DT etc. Nobody knows. It will certainly be difficult for him but the signs seem to suggest that if he stayed exclusive he would earn much less next year than this year.

Yuri's comment simply means that independent contributors producing stock in his speciality are losing ground at iS and that for every lost iS sale they are not getting two additional SS sales to make up the difference. As the search engine can be fixed to bury independents' files, what Yuri says is not necessarily applicable to every big producer. You need to add what people like Sodafish, Rapideye and SJLocke are saying before you can draw a firm conclusion - and most of the iS news seems to be bad.

Alvarez in the iS november thread seems to show fairly conclusively that new files are being favoured over old ones, which hits the sales of "big producers", who by definition have got years of uploading behind them. That will shift sales from high-RC level people to lower ranks, boosting "sustainability". IS may have reckoned on a "too big to quit the crown" phenomenon (I would have, too, for the top echelon) but if so it seems they have pushed it too far.

SNP · « **Reply #77 on:** December 13, 2011, 02:06 »

I think they've just about pushed too far. but it is also a case of the devil you know.

nobody knows as you said. that's the point. and someone with 17 files at iStock shouldn't feel they can impart solid advice about the income drop from iStock being made up in no time. from many accounts from people I trust who have gone independent, or conversely gone exclusive--it seems to be a rude awakening when trying to make up the difference after dropping exclusivity and new exclusives seem quite surprised by the jump in income.

sodafish · « **Reply #78 on:** December 13, 2011, 02:58 »

Yes, for me, they pushed it too far indeed. And somehow I really hope they will come to their senses and reverse some (bad) decisions. I might reconsider the crown because I really miss the place it once was. But at this point, I'm happy I ended the agreement.

Can I recover the loss with the competition? I don't know, and at the moment I even don't care. Since photo is not my first medium, it's a calculated risk I have to take. On the other hand, speaking of Yuri. He's smart and ultra commercial, still he always stayed independent. If he thought he could have made significantly more by being iStock exclusive, I'm sure he would have tried it.

helix7 · « **Reply #79 on:** December 13, 2011, 07:59 »

Quote from: SNP on December 13, 2011, 02:06

...nobody knows as you said. that's the point. and someone with 17 files at iStock shouldn't feel they can impart solid advice about the income drop from iStock being made up in no time. from many accounts from people I trust who have gone independent, or conversely gone exclusive--it seems to be a rude awakening when trying to make up the difference after dropping exclusivity and new exclusives seem quite surprised by the jump in income.

That's always been the problem. You just never now, and everyone's portfolio is different. I think that's the core problem in any of these discussions. There are people who do better independently, and people who do better exclusively. For me personally, it's impossible that I'd do better exclusively. This month my istock earnings are on pace to represent about 6% of my total microstock earnings. There's no way that I'd make up that gap by being exclusive.

But that's just me. I've been with SS and other agencies since 2007, I've gotten images accepted in those early days that would be rejected today and yet still sell today, so I have a significant advantage over new members. Tom (sodafish) has an awesome portfolio of vector icons, but I don't know if he'd do well independently with those images because SS is extremely harsh with icon rejections lately. They reject most icons, even if they're really good, under the "too many on site" reasoning. I stopped producing icons altogether because I can't get them accepted at SS. Tom, really if you do ever decide to try dropping the crown with vectors, do the conditional uploading with SS first to see what they accept. You can upload there while maintaining your exclusivity and SS will keep your portfolio hidden until you end your exclusive contract, so you can test things out before committing to going independent.

I'd love to be able to tell any vector artists that they'd do better independently based on my own personal experience. And if I did, I think in most cases I'd be right. But there are just always going to be some exceptions, so it's impossible to predict the outcome of dropping the crown. Long-term, if you're a relatively new contributor to microstock and plan on generating lots of new content over the next few years, being independent is probably the way to go. But if you've been around for a while, have a significant existing portfolio at istock, or have a portfolio of images that might suffer mass rejections at SS due to the type of imagery, maybe staying exclusive is the best move. It all depends on you, your work, and your plans for the future.

cobalt · « **Reply #80 on:** December 13, 2011, 09:28 »

"Alvarez in the iS november thread seems to show fairly conclusively that new files are being favoured over old ones, which hits the sales of "big producers", who by definition have got years of uploading behind them. That will shift sales from high-RC level people to lower ranks, boosting "sustainability". IS may have reckoned on a "too big to quit the crown" phenomenon (I would have, too, for the top echelon) but if so it seems they have pushed it too far."

It will be very interesting to see if more people see the same thing as Luis in 2012. If our sales are really mostly determined by what we have produced in the last 12 months, then this will severly limit our chances of ever rising in the RC system. Only stock companies or photographers with assistants would be able to produce enough volume to reach higher levels.

Since I personally didn´t upload much in the last 2 years and am still selling quite well (less, but sufficient for such low uploads) most of my downloads are older than 12 months.

Personally I believe the only way to go is to find the holes in the collection and fill them. So you become more specialized, more localized...etc...but if proven bestsellers are pushed back in preference of the copycat images, then our chances of selling would be limited.

However - nearly everyhing I am selling is old.

I really looking forward to using that software Luis introduced at the mexpo. Information like that is extremly valuable.

SNP · « **Reply #81 on:** December 13, 2011, 14:01 »

^ I would modify the theory a little...I am a good case study for what is selling and what isn't (not that I'm successful like a Sean, I'm certainly not). but I have a large port, many of which are files that I uploaded while learning the ropes and that I barely even count as representative of my work today. I leave them in my port, because they still sell. My sales have grown (albeit very gradually) over the last years. Uploading (and improving my work) regularly seems to be the key...but I wouldn't say that files from the last twelve months are favoured. in my opinion, my greatest asset (and Achilles heel, preventing my work from really launching, is that I'm not a niche shooter)...my work isn't immediately recognizable. BUT I have just about every season, and concept somewhat covered in photo uploads. so I seem to ride out seasons and best match shifts consistently. my income is steady and I regularly (as in daily) sell older files. enough that I don't believe the best match is weighted to eliminate files older than 12 months. then again - they are clearly trying to coral images into the PP, maybe at some point it will be the old file dumping ground and only files newer than 18 months will be left in the iStock collection.

I'm going to reiterate another theory too, and I hope the comment will not be misconstrued again as me suggesting anyone isn't working hard. because that is just ridiculous. we're all different, doing this PT/FT/hobby. as stated above by someone else, we're individuals. exclusive contributors who seem to be taking the worst hits are contributors who were early days producers and superstars, who enjoyed major income growth that couldn't possibly be continued with the competition today. they had bestsellers that remained bestsellers for a long time, until the database starting growing faster and faster. these contributors may not have uploaded assuming the sales would keep up. riding the success of less than 1,000 files across five + years is proving to be a risky move. the majority (yes, not all) of diamond contributors reporting losses have this is common.

then there are contributors who upload the same stuff with different models over and over. this has to have a cannibalizing effect on their own sales. to some degree we all do this, but if you do this and you're a niche shooter...I think you're hurting yourself

gostwyck · « **Reply #82 on:** December 13, 2011, 14:35 »

SNP · « **Reply #83 on:** December 13, 2011, 15:04 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 13, 2011, 14:35

Quote from: SNP on December 13, 2011, 14:01
... then there are contributors who upload the same stuff with different models over and over. this has to have a cannibalizing effect on their own sales. to some degree we all do this, but if you do this and you're a niche shooter...I think you're hurting yourself

Not true. If you're a niche shooter and you already 'own' certain niches ... then you'd better keep shooting them to make sure you still own them in a few years time (if you don't then you can be sure that others will). By doing so you're guarding your future income and also making it more difficult for others to grab some of your action. You also become better at shooting that subject and on each shoot can introduce variations to make sure you have as many bases covered as possible. Obviously your efforts in each subject need to be in proportion to the size of the market for them and you also need to keep expanding your range of subjects __ but you certainly don't abandon the stuff that generates your core earnings.

okay, I would agree with that. but I also think there is truth to the argument that repeating what has worked for you in the past (without deviation or consideration for current market conditions) ends up hurting you.

gostwyck · « **Reply #84 on:** December 13, 2011, 15:20 »

Quote from: SNP on December 13, 2011, 15:04

but I also think there is truth to the argument that repeating what has worked for you in the past (without deviation or consideration for current market conditions) ends up hurting you.

How can it hurt you? Ok, you might dilute your own earnings/effort ratio a little and possibly even harm your own best-sellers position in the sort-order (it will do the same to other images too though). But then you should gain greater stability of earnings to counteract that. I would rather upload 10 images which each sold 50x per year than have one image which sold 500x in a year. The 'hot' image is much more likely to be followed by a rash of copies whilst the lower selling stuff may remain under the radar. Having 10 images, rather than relying on one, means your income is less likley to be affected by a change in the best match too.

SNP · « **Reply #85 on:** December 13, 2011, 15:26 »

I think we're saying the same thing. I agree about the hot image. except that the hot image would theoretically have better best match performance. but it could also be dropped by the best match. some people just keep shooting the same stuff despite the increased competition. diversifying and evolving is certainly important? or in the least uploading more than a hundred files per year if you want to continue cornering the market in your niche. you can't rest on your laurels. it doesn't work anymore.

Aldra · « **Reply #86 on:** December 13, 2011, 16:11 »

Hi Guys, I am new here, just want to introduce myself http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/439280/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1833ac55 [nofollow] .
I don't hate, love or have any other personal feelings regarding iStock, they made me such a nice amount of money during last 6 or so years that I can't complaint. But I feel that it is a good time to take my portfolio to other agencies . I came here to learn something, since I was exclusive from the beginning and I feel like in "uncharted waters" for the moment. So hello to all, and it's nice to be here with you.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #87 on:** December 13, 2011, 16:20 »

Wow!

Hi, Aldra. Your work is fantastic. I'd suggest putting it all onto Alamy as well as everywhere else. I'm sure you will be able to get a great return.

gostwyck · « **Reply #88 on:** December 13, 2011, 16:35 »

Quote from: Aldra on December 13, 2011, 16:11

Hi Guys, I am new here, just want to introduce myself http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/439280/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1833ac55 .
I don't hate, love or have any other personal feelings regarding iStock, they made me such a nice amount of money during last 6 or so years that I can't complaint. But I feel that it is a good time to take my portfolio to other agencies . I came here to learn something, since I was exclusive from the beginning and I feel like in "uncharted waters" for the moment. So hello to all, and it's nice to be here with you.

Hi Aldra and welcome! I well remember you bursting on to the scene at Istock with your 'Pit Bull Bunny' image which I think announced you as the AOTW. Fantastic portfolio and I'll look forward to seeing it at the other agencies. Good decision and good timing, I'm sure you'll do extremely well.

pro@stockphotos · « **Reply #89 on:** December 13, 2011, 16:47 »

Sure Aldra, you will enjoy the new sale price of $10 for a large on your many vetta agency files. Your commission will drop from 30% on a large $70 Vetta to 18% on your $10 large sales but you will be surely make for it on the " low per sale prescription" site Shutterstock along with the other cheaper sites. But you will be congratulated by the many independents on here whom never accepted exclusivity with Istock when they had market share of 70% and payed out double to exclusive.

SNP · « **Reply #90 on:** December 13, 2011, 16:52 »

Aldra - your work is so unique and beautiful. I'm perplexed as to why you would choose to go independent since you're clearly successful in the exclusive model. but you know, I'm realizing some contributors just want out of iStock exclusivity. it's difficult not to feel owned these days, and I guess economics aren't always behind the decision. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I understand it. if iStock continue to make me money and give me new sales avenues, I won't drop exclusivity. I don't operate under any illusion that the other agencies are more fair, or nicer.

lisafx · « **Reply #91 on:** December 13, 2011, 16:52 »

Hi Aldra. Welcome. I am very sorry it has come to this. Istock is truly doing something wrong when talented, top-selling exclusives like you, sodafish, and others are making the difficult decision to drop the crown.

Wishing you the best of luck. I am sure you will be successful as an independent, just as you have been as an exclusive. Talent and hard work can make it either way.

Feel free to pm me if there's anything I can do to help or any questions I can answer

FD · « **Reply #92 on:** December 13, 2011, 17:07 »

Quote from: Aldra on December 13, 2011, 16:11

Hi Guys, I am new here, just want to introduce myself http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/439280/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1833ac55

OMFG! Can you please stay exclusive at IS?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #93 on:** December 13, 2011, 17:07 »

Aldra, as someone who has recently made the switch to independent from exclusive (although in my case it was a return to independence) I'd be happy to offer information or perspective. There are some here who will froth at the mouth over iStock (+ or -), but there are plenty of people who have solid experience of both exclusivity and independence who can help you decide if independence is for you and how to go about the transition.

Any site you upload to would be lucky to have your work

Aldra · « **Reply #94 on:** December 13, 2011, 17:15 »

Thanks so much for warm welcome guys ... its gonna be fun

loop · « **Reply #95 on:** December 13, 2011, 17:18 »

It's not good news seeing istock losing the contributors that make istock special and different from any other site. I hope they react. Anyway, good luck, Aldra, I've always admired your work.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #96 on:** December 13, 2011, 17:20 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on December 13, 2011, 16:47

Sure Aldra, you will enjoy the new sale price of $10 for a large on your many vetta agency files. Your commission will drop from 30% on a large $70 Vetta to 18% on your $10 large sales but you will be surely make for it on the " low per sale prescription" site Shutterstock along with the other cheaper sites. But you will be congratulated by the many independents on here whom never accepted exclusivity with Istock when they had market share of 70% and payed out double to exclusive.

Do you really think anybody is "congratulating" top exclusives on dropping their crowns? We all know what a huge step it is and how big a hit they are sure to take. I'd be surprised if she didn't see an instant drop of 80% and I'm sure she knows that. I'm sure she also knows it will be a struggle to get it back.

What the unexpected announcements by several top exclusives this month says to me is that they have looked at the trajectory their earnings are on and realised that there is no long-term future for them as exclusives, so they are better off preparing for the future.

And iStock has never paid out double to exclusives, it only paid double to diamond exclusives. If it had offered that deal to everyone, it would have killed its rivals at birth. Instead, it tried to offer just enough to compensate for the loss of other revenue streams. In the first three years of the exclusivity scheme, there were fewer than 100 people who qualified for 40%.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #97 on:** December 13, 2011, 17:21 »

Quote from: gostwyck on December 13, 2011, 15:20

Quote from: SNP on December 13, 2011, 15:04
but I also think there is truth to the argument that repeating what has worked for you in the past (without deviation or consideration for current market conditions) ends up hurting you.

How can it hurt you?

Because eventually, you have enough headset images, and time spent shooting more, could be spent shooting something which will sell, in addition to, the headset ones. Instead of just replacing sales on other headset images.

gostwyck · « **Reply #98 on:** December 13, 2011, 17:27 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on December 13, 2011, 17:20

And iStock has never paid out double to exclusives, it only paid double to diamond exclusives. If it had offered that deal to everyone, it would have killed its rivals at birth. Instead, it tried to offer just enough to compensate for the loss of other revenue streams. In the first three years of the exclusivity scheme, there were fewer than 100 people who qualified for 40%.

What's more, if Istock had only stuck to their original commission structure ... they'd still be doing fine. Don't blame independent contributors for Istock's demise. Blame the mind-numbing greed of H&F/Getty/Istock.

gostwyck · « **Reply #99 on:** December 13, 2011, 17:37 »

Quote from: sjlocke on December 13, 2011, 17:21

How can it hurt you?

Because eventually, you have enough headset images, and time spent shooting more, could be spent shooting something which will sell, in addition to, the headset ones. Instead of just replacing sales on other headset images.
[/quote]

I've never, ever shot a 'headset image' and have no plans to do so! Maybe that's what I'm doing wrong.

Nonetheless there is a huge market for headset images and even if you already 'own' a significant percentage of that market then shooting more headsets will help you maintain your share and may even grow it.

Ford/Toyota/BMW haven't stopped bringing out new models of car and instead are diversifying into boats, planes or laptops are they? They try to maintain and grow their market share in what they are good at.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

How do you feel about IStock as a company?

Author Topic: How do you feel about IStock? (Read 48725 times)

SNP

BaldricksTrousers

SNP

sodafish

helix7

cobalt

SNP

gostwyck

SNP

gostwyck

SNP

Aldra

BaldricksTrousers

gostwyck

pro@stockphotos

SNP

lisafx

FD

Jo Ann Snover

Aldra

loop

BaldricksTrousers

Sean Locke Photography

gostwyck

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors