MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Microbius on August 05, 2011, 10:15
-
I would like to know if it's correct that "most of its users do still think reasonably well of iStockphoto" as stated on another thread. What better way to check if faith has been eroded in the brand than by a poll!
-
For me... it needs the addition of "compared to other sites."
I do not really "Like" any of them; some less than others.
Maybe "Like" should be "Trust."
-
I voted "somewhat dislike", and then I looked at the results, ;D, it looks like I was kind.
I agree, trust is what we no longer have, in iStock.
-
I dont dislike THEM? I simply dont like nor trust their policies and thats why I cant upload anymore.
-
It's really about how you feel towards the brand.
Whenever it comes up some people will say that it's a vocal minority that particularly dislikes IStock.
I thought a poll would be a good chance for those who think they might get jumped on for making positive comments to have their vote counted.
-
I wish "Google" had an application to mark disliked sites.. The more the site got those "dislikes" the deeper it would get buried to last pages of google search..
I am sure no company would then risk their good relations with visitors or members.. Contributors or buyers.. They would equally be important to the sites..
Just imagine 100.000 contributors voting "dislike" on istock sending it to the bottom of google search!
Perfect World! :D
I think we should suggest google a change in this direction.. We would need nothing else to keep the sites in good standard!
-
It's really about how you feel towards the brand.
Whenever it comes up some people will say that it's a vocal minority that particularly dislikes IStock.
I thought a poll would be a good chance for those who think they might get jumped on for making positive comments to have their vote counted.
Good poll idea and interesting results so far.
-
I strongly dislike my bank and several other companies with whom I do business - it really doesn't matter whether I like iStock or not.
Unfortunately I no longer trust them even when you look at trust in a business not a personal context. Their statements - promises? - to their suppliers are meaningless as they'll change whatever they want whenever they want and dish out some rather thin gruel of corporate spin - money isn't going to make me happy! They have a trail of broken promises and wretched incompetence in keeping the site software running smoothly.
They don't view contributors as partners in the business IMO, not even junior partners. The hope (and I thought actual experience) of things being different - better - is why I still hold a special kind of dislike for them. I got my hopes up - more fool me.
-
There's something happening to me.
It started last September (although I was never a big fan of IStock).
Every single time I login to that site, I have a strange feeling of discomfort and disappointment. A bitter taste in my mouth. I want to get out of there as fast as possible.
Hence my vote for 'strongly dislike'.
As a buyer and as a contributor, no, I don't like them at all.
But hope never dies and who knows, the newly appointed Rebbeca might be able to turn things around ...
-
I ticked neutral.
It used to be more positive, but now our relationship is 'strictly business'.
:P
-
I wonder what the results of the poll would have been if it had done 2 or 3 years ago?
iStock has lost more good will in a shorter time than any company I can think of in history. The greed, ineptitude, and supercilious attitude toward suppliers and customers has been an amazing thing to see.
-
I wish "Google" had an application to mark disliked sites.. The more the site got those "dislikes" the deeper it would get buried to last pages of google search..
I am sure no company would then risk their good relations with visitors or members.. Contributors or buyers.. They would equally be important to the sites..
+1
-
I wish "Google" had an application to mark disliked sites.. The more the site got those "dislikes" the deeper it would get buried to last pages of google search..
I am sure no company would then risk their good relations with visitors or members.. Contributors or buyers.. They would equally be important to the sites..
That would be great, but sadly also open to abuse ("hey dude I "disliked" all the search results above yours for ya!")
-
I wish "Google" had an application to mark disliked sites.. The more the site got those "dislikes" the deeper it would get buried to last pages of google search..
I am sure no company would then risk their good relations with visitors or members.. Contributors or buyers.. They would equally be important to the sites..
+1
Absolutely brilliant!
-
I voted "Strongly dislike" but if "Despise" was an option, that would have been my choice.
-
I voted "Strongly dislike" but if "Despise" was an option, that would have been my choice.
Ouch! Take a Heart for putting a big smile on my face.
-
;D
-
Results are looking pretty interesting so far.
I guess the tone of the debates has actually been pretty spot on as far as the members of this community are concerned, with overwhelming negativity towards IStock.
One less peripheral point to argue over I guess :)
-
It has to be "Strongly dislike" for me. how can I have any better feelings for a site that cut the already lowest commission in the industry? I think the only way my feeling for them will change is if the site is sold and they are purchased by a more contributor friendly company. I know that's unlikely to happen.
-
It has to be "Strongly dislike" for me. how can I have any better feelings for a site that cut the already lowest commission in the industry? I think the only way my feeling for them will change is if the site is sold and they are purchased by a more contributor friendly company. I know that's unlikely to happen.
Just out of interest, how do you know whether the commissions that come from subs sites like SS or Crestock are higher or lower than 15%?
-
^^^I have seen people try to work that out in the past and they have never quoted anything as low as 15%. I would rather get a fixed percentage but I still think they pay significantly more than istock. And my earnings with SS are almost double my istock earnings now, they also sell pay per download at higher commissions and EL's. I get 30% commission for footage clips compared to 15% from istock.
-
I wish "Google" had an application to mark disliked sites.. The more the site got those "dislikes" the deeper it would get buried to last pages of google search..
I am sure no company would then risk their good relations with visitors or members.. Contributors or buyers.. They would equally be important to the sites..
+1
+2
-
^^^I have seen people try to work that out in the past and they have never quoted anything as low as 15%. I would rather get a fixed percentage but I still think they pay significantly more than istock. And my earnings with SS are almost double my istock earnings now, they also sell pay per download at higher commissions and EL's. I get 30% commission for footage clips compared to 15% from istock.
I remember seeing quotes that go below this figure, but really nobody other than the sites themselves have the numbers.
For on demand sales SS pays between 16-19% for entry level contributors and 25-29% for those on the highest rates (based on Euro sales which the site automatically directs me to here, the percentages probably vary with other currencies). I'd find it strange if the subscription percentages were actually any higher than those values. Bottom line though with SS is that *nobody* gets more than 30%.
If you look at IS, probably the average percentages paid to contributors is higher than these numbers, especially if the claim that 50% of sales are on exclusive files is true.
Don't get me wrong - I'd like the percentages to be higher across the industry, but at the moment iStock is singled out while other sites are paying the same or less on much lower file prices and often lower overheads because they don't have the same inspection process, guarantees or marketing team.
-
I can only base my assessment on my own income, and that's telling me that iStock has gradually slipped from second place in my earnings table to fifth place since the changes. I find that an extraordinary drop.
OTOH, Shutterstock has never moved from the number one spot on my earnings list, and it's proportion of the whole has increased considerably lately.
So, even if the percentages were identical (I'm not a base contributor, so I'm sure they're not), I'd still be a lot happier with Shutterstock than iStock.
It's for everyone to make their own decisions based on their own figures, of course, but this is my story anyway.
-
^^^I have seen people try to work that out in the past and they have never quoted anything as low as 15%. I would rather get a fixed percentage but I still think they pay significantly more than istock. And my earnings with SS are almost double my istock earnings now, they also sell pay per download at higher commissions and EL's. I get 30% commission for footage clips compared to 15% from istock.
I remember seeing quotes that go below this figure, but really nobody other than the sites themselves have the numbers.
For on demand sales SS pays between 16-19% for entry level contributors and 25-29% for those on the highest rates (based on Euro sales which the site automatically directs me to here, the percentages probably vary with other currencies). I'd find it strange if the subscription percentages were actually any higher than those values. Bottom line though with SS is that *nobody* gets more than 30%.
If you look at IS, probably the average percentages paid to contributors is higher than these numbers, especially if the claim that 50% of sales are on exclusive files is true.
Don't get me wrong - I'd like the percentages to be higher across the industry, but at the moment iStock is singled out while other sites are paying the same or less on much lower file prices and often lower overheads because they don't have the same inspection process, guarantees or marketing team.
I'm always going to prefer the 25-29% with SS to the 17% I get with istock and SS are making me around 100% more each month. I agree that all the sites could pay more but istock cutting below 20% has put a stop to that. It isn't just the fact that they cut their already low commission, they have given an excuse for other sites to do the same. If sales were increasing a lot, it wouldn't be so bad but that hasn't happened. They are also owned by the people that closed StockXpert, that used to pay me 50% commission and had really good sales.
I know sites can thrive paying 50% commission, as StockXpert did and sites like Pond5 still do. And we really don't know if istock is happy with their current low commissions or if they will become "unsustainable" again. I want a long term future in the microstock business but that doesn't look feasible with istock at the moment.
Other sites like Fotolia are almost as bad as istock, I think they would get similar results in a poll asking the OP's question.
-
I voted "Strongly dislike" but if "Despise" was an option, that would have been my choice.
+1 :)
-
^^^I have seen people try to work that out in the past and they have never quoted anything as low as 15%. I would rather get a fixed percentage but I still think they pay significantly more than istock. And my earnings with SS are almost double my istock earnings now, they also sell pay per download at higher commissions and EL's. I get 30% commission for footage clips compared to 15% from istock.
I remember seeing quotes that go below this figure, but really nobody other than the sites themselves have the numbers.
For on demand sales SS pays between 16-19% for entry level contributors and 25-29% for those on the highest rates (based on Euro sales which the site automatically directs me to here, the percentages probably vary with other currencies). I'd find it strange if the subscription percentages were actually any higher than those values. Bottom line though with SS is that *nobody* gets more than 30%.
If you look at IS, probably the average percentages paid to contributors is higher than these numbers, especially if the claim that 50% of sales are on exclusive files is true.
Don't get me wrong - I'd like the percentages to be higher across the industry, but at the moment iStock is singled out while other sites are paying the same or less on much lower file prices and often lower overheads because they don't have the same inspection process, guarantees or marketing team.
I'm always going to prefer the 25-29% with SS to the 17% I get with istock and SS are making me around 100% more each month. I agree that all the sites could pay more but istock cutting below 20% has put a stop to that. It isn't just the fact that they cut their already low commission, they have given an excuse for other sites to do the same. If sales were increasing a lot, it wouldn't be so bad but that hasn't happened. They are also owned by the people that closed StockXpert, that used to pay me 50% commission and had really good sales.
I know sites can thrive paying 50% commission, as StockXpert did and sites like Pond5 still do. And we really don't know if istock is happy with their current low commissions or if they will become "unsustainable" again. I want a long term future in the microstock business but that doesn't look feasible with istock at the moment.
Other sites like Fotolia are almost as bad as istock, I think they would get similar results in a poll asking the OP's question.
FT and DT both cut their percentages long before IS did. SS doesn't need to because in overall terms they're already at the lowest level in the industry.
-
I wish "Google" had an application to mark disliked sites.. The more the site got those "dislikes" the deeper it would get buried to last pages of google search..
I am sure no company would then risk their good relations with visitors or members.. Contributors or buyers.. They would equally be important to the sites..
That would be great, but sadly also open to abuse ("hey dude I "disliked" all the search results above yours for ya!")
that can be sorted.. it shouldn't be as simple as a dude thing:) it should require something like 10 thousand individual dislikes or something to bury a site to digital hell which in istock's case we have 10 times more than 10 thousand dislikes :D
-
I wish "Google" had an application to mark disliked sites.. The more the site got those "dislikes" the deeper it would get buried to last pages of google search..
I am sure no company would then risk their good relations with visitors or members.. Contributors or buyers.. They would equally be important to the sites..
That would be great, but sadly also open to abuse ("hey dude I "disliked" all the search results above yours for ya!")
That would turn agencies into little angels who want to be in great terms with everyone ;D
-
..FT and DT both cut their percentages long before IS did. SS doesn't need to because in overall terms they're already at the lowest level in the industry.
SS pay their commission to non-exclusives, we're free to upload wherever else we want to. So I don't think it's fair to compare their commission with the average for istock because they have to pay more for exclusives. If you just compare non-exclusives, istock pay a lot less than SS.
And I like that SS pay less to those that don't sell much and have obtainable levels for those that work hard to get sales. There's also no yearly download requirement, when you reach the top level, you stay there.
Like I said before, FT are almost as bad as istock and I have lost my motivation to upload there. What I would like to see is a better way for all of us to sell our images. There's only a few sites now that give us a fair deal and I hope that will change in the future.
-
..FT and DT both cut their percentages long before IS did. SS doesn't need to because in overall terms they're already at the lowest level in the industry.
SS pay their commission to non-exclusives, we're free to upload wherever else we want to. So I don't think it's fair to compare their commission with the average for istock because they have to pay more for exclusives. If you just compare non-exclusives, istock pay a lot less than SS.
And I like that SS pay less to those that don't sell much and have obtainable levels for those that work hard to get sales. There's also no yearly download requirement, when you reach the top level, you stay there.
Like I said before, FT are almost as bad as istock and I have lost my motivation to upload there. What I would like to see is a better way for all of us to sell our images. There's only a few sites now that give us a fair deal and I hope that will change in the future.
there is nothing to compare honestly, we all know that, SS is going up and IS need a big fix which will never happen
even if we compare SS with ThinkStock, SS pays a lot more, everybody gets pretty quick to the 500$ which is 33 not 28cents
-
I do agree that iStock is despicable. They got too big to fold ... sorta like AIG? Not many people are will (or able) to quit them. But, are they really that much worse than the others? Arguing that one is better than the other seems rather temporary.
I see the top four threads are about hating iStock. Wouldn't it be better to just ignore them?
-
I do agree that iStock is despicable. They got too big to fold ... sorta like AIG? Not many people are will (or able) to quit them. But, are they really that much worse than the others? Arguing that one is better than the other seems rather temporary.
I see the top four threads are about hating iStock. Wouldn't it be better to just ignore them?
I cannot, they took me 2h per week during the last 130 weeks! :P
-
^^^I have seen people try to work that out in the past and they have never quoted anything as low as 15%. I would rather get a fixed percentage but I still think they pay significantly more than istock. And my earnings with SS are almost double my istock earnings now, they also sell pay per download at higher commissions and EL's. I get 30% commission for footage clips compared to 15% from istock.
I remember seeing quotes that go below this figure, but really nobody other than the sites themselves have the numbers.
For on demand sales SS pays between 16-19% for entry level contributors and 25-29% for those on the highest rates (based on Euro sales which the site automatically directs me to here, the percentages probably vary with other currencies). I'd find it strange if the subscription percentages were actually any higher than those values. Bottom line though with SS is that *nobody* gets more than 30%.
If you look at IS, probably the average percentages paid to contributors is higher than these numbers, especially if the claim that 50% of sales are on exclusive files is true.
Don't get me wrong - I'd like the percentages to be higher across the industry, but at the moment iStock is singled out while other sites are paying the same or less on much lower file prices and often lower overheads because they don't have the same inspection process, guarantees or marketing team.
Spot on Holgs.
I've never liked iStock but this goes back to 2005 than most people had warm feelings towards them.
But subscription in general is the worst thing, it's a model that is ruining the industry most and is for individual photographers most harmful and it's a model that only will be profitable for the agencies in the very long run. There must be a reason that all agencies enforces the subscription model on this huge scale, I'm sure it is the most profitable thing for them and I'm sure the contributor percentage is way below 20%.
What makes SS better over IS is that they are never be that arrogant to their contributors on this huge scale as IS and they are a more reliable business partner but they don't offer a better deal.
The Woohayers are the people that makes it for the agencies so easy to treat us like crap. Therefore I hate them regardless if they are IS- SS- FT- DT- Woohayers. And a comment from jtyler:' I've been an IS yea-sayer for 6 of my almost 8 years here. I no longer am.' is deeply satisfying for me, she digged her own grave!
-
Royalty percentages matter, but no matter how many times you turn it around, twist it, SS still makes more money than the rest for most contributors. And earnings are most important to everybody but IS (coz money doesn't make 'em happy) ;)
-
i have just close my istock account! there was no sale for 1 year :(
-
I put "somewhat dislike" because of the cut in commission rates.
After dealing with Fotolia, it is difficult to actively dislike anyone else by comparison with the loathing they inspire.
-
Other sites like Fotolia are almost as bad as istock, I think they would get similar results in a poll asking the OP's question.
Fotolia is way, way worse. I've never had to write to iStock threatening to have the FBI on them for internet fraud in order to get paid and I'm pretty sure I never will.
-
No, I dont have any hard feelings towards IS, what they are doing is history repeating itself, the Getty hallmark of doing things and after 18 years with Getty, nothing surprises me.
Being an independat diamond at IS, ( like so many others) I do regret all the hard work but not the money, Im in a position where I can quite happily live without their revenues.
I think the whole affair is a sad story, really, where the without dispute, most premiere micro-site, slowly just fades away into oblivion, well, thats my story.
About Fotolia! I have always got on very well with them and they are selling very well for me. Thats me however, others have a differant story to tell.
-
The bottom line for me was: more and more hoop-jumping for less and less money. And the strong feeling that would only continue. And the whole 'tone' of the company is plain creepy. Like BaldricksTrousers said, they're not sleazeballs like Fotolia - yet...
-
Istock can be better or worse, they can pay more, less or the same percentage than sub-sites, where percentages have to be guessed but, at less, it has the ability to sell our files for fair prices, both for buyers and sellers, that are not near to nothing.For me, that's the best part. One good exemple, today, my three last sales add up to 26 dollars, and they doesn't include any Vetta or Agency and just one E+.
-
Istock can be better or worse, they can pay more, less or the same percentage than sub-sites, where percentages have to be guessed but, at less, it has the ability to sell our files for fair prices, both for buyers and sellers, that are not near to nothing.For me, that's the best part. One good exemple, today, my three last sales add up to 26 dollars, and they doesn't include any Vetta or Agency and just one E+.
they may "sell our files for fair prices" but they sure as hell don't give independents a "fair" cut of the sale.
-
Istock can be better or worse, they can pay more, less or the same percentage than sub-sites, where percentages have to be guessed but, at less, it has the ability to sell our files for fair prices, both for buyers and sellers, that are not near to nothing.For me, that's the best part. One good exemple, today, my three last sales add up to 26 dollars, and they doesn't include any Vetta or Agency and just one E+.
they may "sell our files for fair prices" but they sure as hell don't give independents a "fair" cut of the sale.
Thats why its better just leaving them instead of this never ending forum story. Im in the process of just that. Dont need the aggro anymore.
-
I would like to know if it's correct that "most of its users do still think reasonably well of iStockphoto" as stated on another thread. What better way to check if faith has been eroded in the brand than by a poll!
In that case, your poll has the wrong premise/options.
It should be something like, "Since last year, has your view of Istock changed for the worse?"
Very much
Somewhat
Marginally
Not at all
-
While I'd always love to be making more money in stock, it's not the financial troubles of istock that bother me most about the company. I work with lots of companies, some that are far worse performers than istock.
What really stinks about the company is the shady approach they take with contributor relations. The lies, the double-speak, the claw-backs, the conflicting information, etc. The latest is the vector format change to EPS10. istock has said for years that they don't need the EPS10 format, there's no reason to change, etc. They put out that customer poll and then a few weeks later they announce the new EPS10 format standard. Yesterday we get the Contact Sheet email saying "You contributors asked for it, so here it is!" Oh please.
We know there's more to the story. Buyers were a major factor. Probably based on some information from that poll, maybe general buyer feedback, requests, customer support conversations, etc. But don't patronize us and act like it's some magical gift that you're giving us just because we asked for it. We asked for it years ago, and since then on an almost monthly basis, and we were always promptly shot down.
I wish they could just be honest. No idea why that's so hard. If a decision is made for a specific reason, just tell us. We can handle it. Don't tell us that your 80% royalty cut is "unsustainable." We're not stupid. Even if the truth sucks, just tell it like it is. If you want to boost company profits, then just tell us that's what you're doing. We might not be all that thrilled about the real reason for the change, but at least then you're not caught between some bad news AND an unbelievable lie about the reason for the bad news.
-
I think that "unsustainable" translates as "fails to generate enough profit to satisfy the 2 levels of corporate ownership above us".
-
I accidently click strongly like, but what I meant to click was strongly dislike. I don't know how to change my vote.
-
I wish "Google" had an application to mark disliked sites.. The more the site got those "dislikes" the deeper it would get buried to last pages of google search..
I am sure no company would then risk their good relations with visitors or members.. Contributors or buyers.. They would equally be important to the sites..
Just imagine 100.000 contributors voting "dislike" on istock sending it to the bottom of google search!
Perfect World! :D
I think we should suggest google a change in this direction.. We would need nothing else to keep the sites in good standard!
:-) really a noble idea cidepix ! :-)
-
I accidently click strongly like, but what I meant to click was strongly dislike. I don't know how to change my vote.
I don't think I can change it, but frankly from the way it's stacking up I don't think it's going to skew the results too much! ;)
-
I left photo exclusive in the fall of 2010. Now I have decided to leave video exclusive. That is how I feel. iStock has to do what it has to do, so do I.
more info here: http://www.eyeidea.com/2011/12/06/expanding-stock-video-distribution/ (http://www.eyeidea.com/2011/12/06/expanding-stock-video-distribution/)
-
I left photo exclusive in the fall of 2010. Now I have decided to leave video exclusive. That is how I feel. iStock has to do what it has to do, so do I.
more info here: [url]http://www.eyeidea.com/2011/12/06/expanding-stock-video-distribution/[/url] ([url]http://www.eyeidea.com/2011/12/06/expanding-stock-video-distribution/[/url])
Thanks for the link to your blog. Although I know a fair bit about iStock for photo and illustrations, I know nothing about video or audio. I did read your post in the video forum but wondered if you'd care to elaborate on what changed with video exclusivity that you found the business case no longer compelling. If it was related to the RC system for earning a royalty percentage - and that yours dropped, that certainly would make sense, but I wondered if there were other video factors in play?
Good luck with the transition
-
I'm finally pissed off!
Yesterday evening I sold a file for $2.3 and now the revenue of the sold image is gone.
The "latest download" tab is a mess, everytime I refresh it, it shows me another result.
I am not able to see my downloaded images between November 26th and December 1st even if the earnings went up.
I cannot trust them anymore and I'm very disappointed. iStock used to be one of my two favorites and now they are on the bottom of my list.
-
I just can't wait for Lobo to help me with my bags at walmart.
-
I left photo exclusive in the fall of 2010. Now I have decided to leave video exclusive. That is how I feel. iStock has to do what it has to do, so do I.
more info here: [url]http://www.eyeidea.com/2011/12/06/expanding-stock-video-distribution/[/url] ([url]http://www.eyeidea.com/2011/12/06/expanding-stock-video-distribution/[/url])
Thanks for the link to your blog. Although I know a fair bit about iStock for photo and illustrations, I know nothing about video or audio. I did read your post in the video forum but wondered if you'd care to elaborate on what changed with video exclusivity that you found the business case no longer compelling. If it was related to the RC system for earning a royalty percentage - and that yours dropped, that certainly would make sense, but I wondered if there were other video factors in play?
Good luck with the transition
The long queue for getting online the footage plays a big role as well. Having to wait 2-3 months to get the movie online when competitors can get your movie in about 1-2 days is not so great.
Eyeidea has a strong portfolio and he will succeed quite from beginning(I just imagine how much simonkr could earn by going nonexclusive).
-
After 5 loyal years, I just ended my photo exclusivity.
While I truly hope I will still stay exclusive for vectors for a long time, I have to run my own business and want to be prepared for the worst. I'm simply too disappointed with their latest decisions at the moment, so I'm gonna test the waters for photo.
-
After 5 loyal years, I just ended my photo exclusivity.
While I truly hope I will still stay exclusive for vectors for a long time, I have to run my own business and want to be prepared for the worst. I'm simply too disappointed with their latest decisions at the moment, so I'm gonna test the waters for photo.
Fair enough. Seems like they are really starting to lose some exclusive base.
-
After 5 loyal years, I just ended my photo exclusivity.
While I truly hope I will still stay exclusive for vectors for a long time, I have to run my own business and want to be prepared for the worst. I'm simply too disappointed with their latest decisions at the moment, so I'm gonna test the waters for photo.
Fair enough. Seems like they are really starting to lose some exclusive base.
Seems like they don't actually care. For example, evidence on here from new independents is that they don't do any follow up survey of leaving exclusives to find out why they're leaving.
If they really valued the exclusive program, they'd be finding out why people leave and doing something about it.
Seems 'increased profitablity' is worth more to them than exclusive files.
-
After 5 loyal years, I just ended my photo exclusivity.
While I truly hope I will still stay exclusive for vectors for a long time, I have to run my own business and want to be prepared for the worst. I'm simply too disappointed with their latest decisions at the moment, so I'm gonna test the waters for photo.
Fair enough. Seems like they are really starting to lose some exclusive base.
Seems like they don't actually care. For example, evidence on here from new independents is that they don't do any follow up survey of leaving exclusives to find out why they're leaving.
If they really valued the exclusive program, they'd be finding out why people leave and doing something about it.
Seems 'increased profitablity' is worth more to them than exclusive files.
Agreeing ! they dont care and why should they? its a flash in the pan and not the worry of the IS-admin but of Getty and Getty, still looks upon micro as a flee-market and low-class photographers, their baby is and have always been the RM house-collection.
Micro shooters come and go, the plebs of the industry. No big deal.
The fact that ultra-heavy members are leaving, what a pitty, so sad.
mindboggling.
-
After 5 loyal years, I just ended my photo exclusivity.
While I truly hope I will still stay exclusive for vectors for a long time, I have to run my own business and want to be prepared for the worst. I'm simply too disappointed with their latest decisions at the moment, so I'm gonna test the waters for photo.
Fair enough. Seems like they are really starting to lose some exclusive base.
Rebbecca's doing a fantastic job isn't she? Imagine how bad things could be without her taking charge of the situation. Phew!
-
After 5 loyal years, I just ended my photo exclusivity.
While I truly hope I will still stay exclusive for vectors for a long time, I have to run my own business and want to be prepared for the worst. I'm simply too disappointed with their latest decisions at the moment, so I'm gonna test the waters for photo.
Fair enough. Seems like they are really starting to lose some exclusive base.
Rebbecca's doing a fantastic job isn't she? Imagine how bad things could be without her taking charge of the situation. Phew!
For all we know, she may well be doing extremely well at her job, i.e. fulfilling whatever brief she was given for istock.
-
Exactly! she is doing exeptionally well, following all instructiuons, killing off the last remains, slaughtering anything in sight. Well, she had the balls for it, obviously KKthompson had not.
To think that just over a year back, I was actually thinking of exclusivity. Phew! Saw the light. :)
-
After 5 loyal years, I just ended my photo exclusivity.
While I truly hope I will still stay exclusive for vectors for a long time, I have to run my own business and want to be prepared for the worst. I'm simply too disappointed with their latest decisions at the moment, so I'm gonna test the waters for photo.
I dropped photo exclusivity in September. I think you'll be impressed by the volume of sales at SS but I remain unconvinced about dropping vector exclusivity. However, if other big time contributors start testing the waters things could change very fast. Interesting times for sure.
-
The istock brand relies very heavily on the exclusive content as USP. Of course that includes the specialized Getty content like the Hulton archive and CSA.
All the other sites have more or less the same content and have to make their point on service or price.
It is not a good sign that longtime exclusives are dropping their second subject. Of course I did it as well, but I was mostly driven out by the unbearable waiting times for exclusive video.
If they brought that down to 2 weeks, I might consider going back as soon as I have enough experience. Of course istock will have to prove that they are the most successful at selling my videos, but in the next 18 months many things can happen.
-
more info here: [url]http://www.eyeidea.com/2011/12/06/expanding-stock-video-distribution/[/url] ([url]http://www.eyeidea.com/2011/12/06/expanding-stock-video-distribution/[/url])
51 ways to leave your lover ;)
PS - what a great portfolio!
-
I dropped photo exclusivity in September. I think you'll be impressed by the volume of sales at SS but I remain unconvinced about dropping vector exclusivity. However, if other big time contributors start testing the waters things could change very fast. Interesting times for sure.
It'll depend on earnings. I dropped photo exclusivity the day the option became available but didn't do much with it until after the summer when the gaping hole that used to be my royalties came into view. Now I'm working hard at getting raster portfolios established and submitting nothing to istock. And that's nuts, 'cause I LOVED being exclusive. As a group, the vector artists had created a nice collection and I liked being a part of that. I really don't enjoy contributing to a bunch of sites and I'm annoyed that it came to this, but it would be foolish to sit still with the potential for further decline and royalty cuts. I'm going to hold on to vector exclusivity as long as it makes sense but current trends don't suggest much of a future for it.
-
After 5 loyal years, I just ended my photo exclusivity.
While I truly hope I will still stay exclusive for vectors for a long time, I have to run my own business and want to be prepared for the worst. I'm simply too disappointed with their latest decisions at the moment, so I'm gonna test the waters for photo.
If you ask me you should be able to recover most of your revenue by simply submitting to Shutterstock. Add a few more decent agencies and you will get back what you had being exclusive, and maybe more.
-
After 5 loyal years, I just ended my photo exclusivity.
While I truly hope I will still stay exclusive for vectors for a long time, I have to run my own business and want to be prepared for the worst. I'm simply too disappointed with their latest decisions at the moment, so I'm gonna test the waters for photo.
If you ask me you should be able to recover most of your revenue by simply submitting to Shutterstock. Add a few more decent agencies and you will get back what you had being exclusive, and maybe more.
Somehow, I'm not convinced there are much more "decent" agencies besides IS and SS at the moment, speaking revenue wise. But since I was always IS exclusive, I'm an amateur on that front.
I guess all the recent bugs and the new "rules" at IS made it too uncomfortable for me. I want to have a more stable long time perspective. It will be interesting too see how SS can compensate and how it evolves. Looking forward to some new challenges.
-
They have even started getting extremely picky with audio files (Sound effects in my case). This has never happened before but they reject a file for having certain keywords that are associated with the file. I don't know what they are playing at but cutting down keywords (every other site encourage as many as possible to associate the sound) will decrease sales.
-
Looks like some pretty high profile contributors are starting to abandon ship.
Like some of the others I look at this as a business and I will adjust it as needed.
I'm not overly comfortable with where Istock, or any of the other micro sites, are headed. When I went exclusive it was during the time when sales were strong and they seemed to highly value people. My sales are still reasonably strong but given all the bad sales reports I'm not expecting it to stay that way.
So I'm going to stay photo exclusive while I branch out into testing non-exclusive video, Illustration, and non-stock. I'm hoping this diversity will give me the leverage to make changes to my business while minimally impacting income.
-
...While I truly hope I will still stay exclusive for vectors for a long time, I have to run my own business and want to be prepared for the worst...
Please do. I'd rather not see your stuff showing up at other agencies. :)
Somehow, I'm not convinced there are much more "decent" agencies besides IS and SS at the moment, speaking revenue wise. But since I was always IS exclusive, I'm an amateur on that front...
I think the trouble you're going to find is that the agencies that are good for photo contributors aren't always good for vector contributors, and vice-versa. SS is of course an exception. Everyone tends to do well there. But there are some great sites that vector folks do well at that aren't known for being great for photographers. Testing the waters with photos isn't going to be a way of seeing how your vector work could do independently.
-
After 5 loyal years, I just ended my photo exclusivity.
While I truly hope I will still stay exclusive for vectors for a long time, I have to run my own business and want to be prepared for the worst. I'm simply too disappointed with their latest decisions at the moment, so I'm gonna test the waters for photo.
If you ask me you should be able to recover most of your revenue by simply submitting to Shutterstock. Add a few more decent agencies and you will get back what you had being exclusive, and maybe more.
how can you give this kind of general advice? you have 17 files on iStock and not many more with other agencies. just saying
-
how can you give this kind of general advice? you have 17 files on iStock and not many more with other agencies. just saying
3,200 on SS; 2,300 on FT; 3,200 on CanStock - by what yardstick is 3,200 "not many more" than 17?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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.
-
"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.
-
^ 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
-
...
-
... 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
Hi Guys, I am new here, just want to introduce myself [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/439280/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1833ac55[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/439280/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1833ac55) [/url] .
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
Hi Guys, I am new here, just want to introduce myself [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/439280/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1833ac55[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/439280/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1833ac55)[/url]
OMFG! Can you please stay exclusive at IS? :P
-
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 :)
-
Thanks so much for warm welcome guys ... its gonna be fun
-
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.
-
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%.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
funny, one of Aldra's bestselling images is....a headset on white....blue flames. couldn't resist. amazing though considering the unbelievable creativity and beauty of other images in that port
-
Yep Headsets are fun :)
-
...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.
I'm not sure that's the right way to look at it. A Toyota purchase potentially takes a sale away from every other car manufacturer, because that buyer isn't in the market for a Ford or BMW once they bought the Toyota. Stock image buyers are always in the market for more images, but usually different images. Once they finish that headset project, they're on to a speaker project, a microphone project, etc., and need relevant images for all of those projects.
If I'm good at creating headset images, then sure I want a couple hundred really really good headset images to help me take a good chunk of that niche. But with a few thousand headset images I think at some point I'd only be competing with myself, and only for the attention of the fairly limited pool of buyers who are only ever looking for headset images. It's marketing yourself to the limited audience that only needs one of something, rather than marketing yourself to the wider audience that will be a repeat customer.
-
Clothes change, hairstyles change, office decor changes - from mad men formal to dockers and polo shirts in only a few decades :) Technology changes faster than anything - desktops, laptops, phones and even headsets.
Even if you do food shots, styles of plating food in upscale restaurants changes over the years; all those plates with finely chopped greens sprinkled like glitter give way to drizzles of some glaze, for example. I think there's probably a reason the agencies are looking for what they call "fresh" content in areas they've been serving for years. And so the Christmas expert or headset expert (or whatever) will want to stay current with the latest in that area.
Compare old and new of a similar scene:
(http://images.clipart.com/thw/thw9/PHDC/20080701/PBW/3/71993232.thc.jpg?1001737083) (http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbview_approve/18467050/2/stock-photo-18467050-teamwork-solves-problems.jpg)
When images start to look too long in the tooth, seems the person in that niche has the greatest incentive to do the upgrades.
-
I would like to know if it's correct that "most of its users do still think reasonably well of iStockphoto" as stated on another thread. What better way to check if faith has been eroded in the brand than by a poll!
I think their upload/submission process is wholly inefficient. Their policies of whats "suitable for stock" changes with the wind. They manage us like we are mindless and their forums are toxic. For buyers they are also tyrannical regarding credits and their pricing. I get the impression that management is out of touch. Other than that, they are a descent company. :P
-
Hi Aldra,
welcome to msg! I love your work, you are one of my favorite artists on istock. It is sad to see that istock is losing you.
But after all that happened in the last 18 months, it is no surprise that people are beginning to look elsewhere. Working with a buggy site is no fun, plus the lack of communication and most of all the terrible loss in traffic without any explanation - doesn´t give the impression that the market leader is out to aggressively crush the competition and draw all the customers in.
I do hope they can at least fix the site, just a little stability, just one year of peace - it would do so much to restore contributor confidence.
-
a poll is only as good as its sample group. a poll here is entertainment at best.
-
I think their upload/submission process is wholly inefficient. Their policies of whats "suitable for stock" changes with the wind. They manage us like we are mindless and their forums are toxic. For buyers they are also tyrannical regarding credits and their pricing. I get the impression that management is out of touch. Other than that, they are a descent company. :P
Personally, I don't mind the upload process, but I totally agree that 'mushroom management' sums it up perfectly. However, when we have several reports of contributors getting 10c or less for a sale, which is LESS than half what I earned in 2006, I think your statement about being 'tyrannical to buyers' is a bit of an overstatement, even allowing for the commission cuts to most/many contributors.
-
Other than that, they are a descent company. :P
your typo is Freudian...;-)
-
a poll is only as good as its sample group. a poll here is entertainment at best.
True. The internet is a pretty good 'sample group' though isn't it? Maybe the traffic stat's for Istockphoto are 'entertainment' for all those who resented their commission cuts. Wouldn't surprise me if there's plenty more 'entertainment' to come yet. "Your parachute is under your seat" __ as they say.
-
Other than that, they are a descent company. :P
your typo is Freudian...;-)
Woo yay!!!
-
Hi Guys, I am new here, just want to introduce myself [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/439280/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1833ac55[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/439280/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1833ac55) [/url] .
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.
Aldra . . . Just . . . WOW!!!! What an amazing portfolio you have!! I think you'll do well anywhere!
-
Aldra,
have you asked Getty if they will keep your contract? Or maybe it is worth keeping your 600 Vetta files with them and not upload these to the micros? Or are the results on Getty itself so dissapointing?
Did anyone from istock contact you personally to ask in more detail why you are leaving or make an effort to win you back?
Or at least to thank you for the many years of excellent business collaboration wishing you well in your journey?
-
Other than that, they are a descent company. :P
your typo is Freudian...;-)
Snort ;D
-
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.
For some or most of us truth matters. What iSt-oka want to I believe is not powerfull enough to convince me in they greedy *insult removed* game. Maybe you were in right time in right place and avoid touching TipToes but most of us are not. I really dont understand why you advocate this *insult removed* just from you own horse glasses perspective?
Dont worry be happy and start practicing Salute to Sun exercise in new year.
Ill been watching you, to how you delusion/s will evolve thru next year.
-
But i just bought my horse glasses
-
For some or most of us truth matters. What iSt-oka want to I believe is not powerfull enough to convince me in they greedy *insult removed* game. Maybe you were in right time in right place and avoid touching TipToes but most of us are not. I really dont understand why you advocate this *insult removed* just from you own horse glasses perspective?
Dont worry be happy and start practicing Salute to Sun exercise in new year.
Ill been watching you, to how you delusion/s will evolve thru next year.
He's a poet __ but he don't know it.
-
But i just bought my horse glasses
So what you see thru it in my case !?
-
Hi Aldra! welcome to the ever exiting world of independants! fantastic port.
On another note: there are so many high-flying exclusives leaving, I think we can safetly resume to the fact, IS, is definetely losing it. At first one thought it was a flash in the pan, you knoiw, the kind of usual bickering but not now. Here are a whole string of really heavy contributors, leaving. DAD sign indeed.
Somehow I dont think the Getty/IS, hierarchy expected this.
-
...there are so many high-flying exclusives leaving, I think we can safetly resume to the fact, IS, is definetely losing it...
Hi Christian. I must have missed something. I've seen a few (as in 2-3) "high-flying exclusives" recently publicly stating that they will go independent. I've not though seen "SO MANY" do it. Can you elaborate on/point out where this info is coming from - forum threads, blogs etc. or is this secret/private?
Thanks!
Martin
-
Isn't it four or five out of the top couple of hundred? It's like watching a dam starting to break.
No doubt a lot of others will be watching with interest to see what sort of results these people report. If they do well, others will probably follow. If they don't, people will probably stay aboard the RMS iStock, convinced that she's unsinkable and can't have been holed.
-
Isn't it four or five out of the top couple of hundred? It's like watching a dam starting to break.
No doubt a lot of others will be watching with interest to see what sort of results these people report. If they do well, others will probably follow. If they don't, people will probably stay aboard the RMS iStock, convinced that she's unsinkable and can't have been holed.
oh come now, "iStock = Titanic" references are so 2010....you can do better than that
-
Isn't it four or five out of the top couple of hundred? It's like watching a dam starting to break.
No doubt a lot of others will be watching with interest to see what sort of results these people report. If they do well, others will probably follow. If they don't, people will probably stay aboard the RMS iStock, convinced that she's unsinkable and can't have been holed.
4-5 exclusives going independent out of the top 2-300 contributors = 4,5/250 = 1,8%...hmmm that is a very small leak (so far).
-
How many top exclusives have left in the last 5 years? And how many of them have several hundred Vetta files in their port?
Plus istock loses all their new incoming work or cannot place it into V/A.
-
Sorry, of course what I meant to say was they would be convinced that the LZ-2000 iStock would float serenely onwards through heavily oversaturated blue skies, guided by its captain's steady hand, driven by powerful Hellfried engines, and could never encounter any storm that would make it crash and burn.
-
...there are so many high-flying exclusives leaving, I think we can safetly resume to the fact, IS, is definetely losing it...
Hi Christian. I must have missed something. I've seen a few (as in 2-3) "high-flying exclusives" recently publicly stating that they will go independent. I've not though seen "SO MANY" do it. Can you elaborate on/point out where this info is coming from - forum threads, blogs etc. or is this secret/private?
Thanks!
Martin
Hi Martin! how goes?
Oh its a bit more then that. When people like this starts to leave, it generates bad feelings, insecurity and pretty soon many will follow, pretty much the same in any business. I think we all, deep down inside, thought this was never going to happen, I mean we have all earnt pretty good revenues here, well, I have anyway, this domino effect however, is pretty bad.
No doubt the Getty/IS, admin wanted this effect, the plans are probabaly to let IS, house all the Vettas/agency files and then let TS, handle the rest. Jolly lousy show I would say.
-
No doubt the Getty/IS, admin wanted this effect, the plans are probabaly to let IS, house all the Vettas/agency files and then let TS, handle the rest. Jolly lousy show I would say.
You should be cautious about ascribing malice to things that companies can achieve through stupidity.
-
zajebaćeš se.
-
...there are so many high-flying exclusives leaving, I think we can safetly resume to the fact, IS, is definetely losing it...
Hi Christian. I must have missed something. I've seen a few (as in 2-3) "high-flying exclusives" recently publicly stating that they will go independent. I've not though seen "SO MANY" do it. Can you elaborate on/point out where this info is coming from - forum threads, blogs etc. or is this secret/private?
Thanks!
Martin
Hi Martin! how goes?
Oh its a bit more then that. When people like this starts to leave, it generates bad feelings, insecurity and pretty soon many will follow, pretty much the same in any business. I think we all, deep down inside, thought this was never going to happen, I mean we have all earnt pretty good revenues here, well, I have anyway, this domino effect however, is pretty bad.
No doubt the Getty/IS, admin wanted this effect, the plans are probabaly to let IS, house all the Vettas/agency files and then let TS, handle the rest. Jolly lousy show I would say.
Everything is fine bar the wind and the * rain!
I agree about the bad feelings, insecurity etc. - as I said before it is easy for people to jump on the bandwagon, just look at Swedbank in Estonia I think it was.
I don't agree/believe this is the end of iStock as we know it, I'm sure they will get their act together - don't forget they were first and are still the biggest. I wouldn't be surprised if soon it will be Shutterstock's turn to be on the receiving end of some serious criticism and negative feelings. I had a look in their forum and all is not looking well, a lot of negative feelings brewing, lots of bugs etc.
Regarding TS and Photos.com - Getty as a whole sure seems to at least want to "be able" to fill it with enough content to give especially Shutterstock some serious competition, even undercutting it....so I see problems on the horizon more for Shutterstock then iStock/Getty...at least I hope I'm right hahaha! Anyway it is as always about adapt adapt adapt
-
Aldra, I wish you all the best, it's very sad seeing another iStock inspirational artist dropping their exclusive status.
-
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.
Amazing portfolio. You are taking definitely a risky option with so many files in the macro-RF price range. Although I don't believe that the "other" sites have greener pastures it doesn't surprise me you took that decision with the latest H&F/Getty decisions. They will keep loosing ground if they don't act in a fairer way to both clients and contributors. The RC targets and their final goal to get closer to the 20% royalties they are used to in macro will/is getting a strong resistance by many. I also think that you and other heavy guns abandoning crowns with be closely monitored to see if exclusivity is really worth it nowadays.
-
Again thanks for warm welcome and nice words, I just wanted to say "hallo". I don't represent anybody other than myself and my decision to go independent is based on my believes that it will be best for ME. I do not imply that iStock is "TITANIC", but I also hope it will not become " Nautilus" soon. My 600+ Vetta images don't sell this days. so they are just pretty pictures in some virtual twilight ( no wonder with a price tag of 500+ euros on Getty ) I am not leaving iStock, I just feel that it will be better (for me) to be represented by other agencies as well. Time will tell .... (again, this is not emotional decision or reaction, and I don't want to make any troubles to anyone here or at iStock, I came here to get some information since that is impossible on istock forums)
-
I think their upload/submission process is wholly inefficient. Their policies of whats "suitable for stock" changes with the wind. They manage us like we are mindless and their forums are toxic. For buyers they are also tyrannical regarding credits and their pricing. I get the impression that management is out of touch. Other than that, they are a descent company. :P
Personally, I don't mind the upload process, but I totally agree that 'mushroom management' sums it up perfectly. However, when we have several reports of contributors getting 10c or less for a sale, which is LESS than half what I earned in 2006, I think your statement about being 'tyrannical to buyers' is a bit of an overstatement, even allowing for the commission cuts to most/many contributors.
I should qualify that I submit illustrations to istock. So it might be different for photos. However, an FTP with quick submission like iRockstock or Stockfuel and GraphicLeftovers (even quicker), has spoiled me a little. ::)
-
Other than that, they are a descent company. :P
your typo is Freudian...;-)
Indeed! A decent typo. ;D
-
..... don't forget they were first and are still the biggest.....
Is this still the case? I thought all indicators were that they have now fallen into second place in terms of site traffic?
Their collection size is certainly not the biggest either, so I think by any variable we are privy to this is no longer true.
(we can obviously speculate about profitability, but as by their own admission they have been operating with an unsustainable business model and given the fall in traffic I would assume they aren't doing too great there anymore either)
-
Again thanks for warm welcome and nice words, I just wanted to say "hallo". I don't represent anybody other than myself and my decision to go independent is based on my believes that it will be best for ME. I do not imply that iStock is "TITANIC", but I also hope it will not become " Nautilus" soon. My 600+ Vetta images don't sell this days. so they are just pretty pictures in some virtual twilight ( no wonder with a price tag of 500+ euros on Getty ) I am not leaving iStock, I just feel that it will be better (for me) to be represented by other agencies as well. Time will tell .... (again, this is not emotional decision or reaction, and I don't want to make any troubles to anyone here or at iStock, I came here to get some information since that is impossible on istock forums)
What about GI sales ??
You port is incredible and I would think twice before leaving exclusivity if I where you.
Also if the Vetta isn't going well for you, why not remove some photos from Vetta back into the main collection ??
-
..... don't forget they were first and are still the biggest.....
Is this still the case? I thought all indicators were that they have now fallen into second place in terms of site traffic?
Their collection size is certainly not the biggest either, so I think by any variable we are privy to this is no longer true.
(we can obviously speculate about profitability, but as by their own admission they have been operating with an unsustainable business model and given the fall in traffic I would assume they aren't doing too great there anymore either)
My unclear use of "biggest" was supposed to refer to company turnover/revenue, contributor payout and as well as overall clout - I've seen nothing so far disputing those.
-
...there are so many high-flying exclusives leaving, I think we can safetly resume to the fact, IS, is definetely losing it...
Hi Christian. I must have missed something. I've seen a few (as in 2-3) "high-flying exclusives" recently publicly stating that they will go independent. I've not though seen "SO MANY" do it. Can you elaborate on/point out where this info is coming from - forum threads, blogs etc. or is this secret/private?
Thanks!
Martin
Yep! I dont get it? where is this bloody wind and rain coming from? Here up on my farm, it was predicted a sunny day, 5 degrees, etc, yet I woke up to rain/snow and all that rubbish plus half-storm.
The SMHI, here have got billions of dollars in equipment, satellites, etc, yet they seem to use, tea-leafs and tarrott cards to predict. Bloody useless. :)
Hi Martin! how goes?
Oh its a bit more then that. When people like this starts to leave, it generates bad feelings, insecurity and pretty soon many will follow, pretty much the same in any business. I think we all, deep down inside, thought this was never going to happen, I mean we have all earnt pretty good revenues here, well, I have anyway, this domino effect however, is pretty bad.
No doubt the Getty/IS, admin wanted this effect, the plans are probabaly to let IS, house all the Vettas/agency files and then let TS, handle the rest. Jolly lousy show I would say.
Everything is fine bar the wind and the rain!
I agree about the bad feelings, insecurity etc. - as I said before it is easy for people to jump on the bandwagon, just look at Swedbank in Estonia I think it was.
I don't agree/believe this is the end of iStock as we know it, I'm sure they will get their act together - don't forget they were first and are still the biggest. I wouldn't be surprised if soon it will be Shutterstock's turn to be on the receiving end of some serious criticism and negative feelings. I had a look in their forum and all is not looking well, a lot of negative feelings brewing, lots of bugs etc.
Regarding TS and Photos.com - Getty as a whole sure seems to at least want to "be able" to fill it with enough content to give especially Shutterstock some serious competition, even undercutting it....so I see problems on the horizon more for Shutterstock then iStock/Getty...at least I hope I'm right hahaha! Anyway it is as always about adapt adapt adapt
-
Again thanks for warm welcome and nice words, I just wanted to say "hallo". I don't represent anybody other than myself and my decision to go independent is based on my believes that it will be best for ME. I do not imply that iStock is "TITANIC", but I also hope it will not become " Nautilus" soon. My 600+ Vetta images don't sell this days. so they are just pretty pictures in some virtual twilight ( no wonder with a price tag of 500+ euros on Getty ) I am not leaving iStock, I just feel that it will be better (for me) to be represented by other agencies as well. Time will tell .... (again, this is not emotional decision or reaction, and I don't want to make any troubles to anyone here or at iStock, I came here to get some information since that is impossible on istock forums)
What about GI sales ??
What GI sales ???? :P
-
@lagereek
That is the only thing (joking) the Norwegians are better at...predicting weather. Check out yr.no usually better predictions than SMHI.
-
Sales via the "Vetta to Gety" port that get reported at the ~20th of every month.
these nice purple bars in your income graph.
-
lol I know what are you talking about, but they don't exist anymore .....
-
..... don't forget they were first and are still the biggest.....
Is this still the case? I thought all indicators were that they have now fallen into second place in terms of site traffic?
Their collection size is certainly not the biggest either, so I think by any variable we are privy to this is no longer true.
(we can obviously speculate about profitability, but as by their own admission they have been operating with an unsustainable business model and given the fall in traffic I would assume they aren't doing too great there anymore either)
My unclear use of "biggest" was supposed to refer to company turnover/revenue, contributor payout and as well as overall clout - I've seen nothing so far disputing those.
Alexa Traffic Rank
Istock
Global Rank = 325
US Rank = 243
Huge drop at the end of 2010 (Nov-Dec) for istock in pageviews.
What cause the drop? Most here are hoping it's because buyers are
leaving. I would think if that was true we would see a different type
of chart.
Shutterstock
Global Rank = 374
US Rank = 419
Most people here seems to being using the measurement of Pageviews/User to show that Shutterstock is ahead. I think comparing
Bounce rate is also interesting.
Some more reading.
http://www.virtu-software.com/ask-doug/QandA.asp?q=79 (http://www.virtu-software.com/ask-doug/QandA.asp?q=79)
http://www.kaushik.net/avinash/standard-metrics-revisited-6-daily-weekly-monthly-unique-visitors/ (http://www.kaushik.net/avinash/standard-metrics-revisited-6-daily-weekly-monthly-unique-visitors/)
-
..... don't forget they were first and are still the biggest.....
Is this still the case? I thought all indicators were that they have now fallen into second place in terms of site traffic?
Their collection size is certainly not the biggest either, so I think by any variable we are privy to this is no longer true.
(we can obviously speculate about profitability, but as by their own admission they have been operating with an unsustainable business model and given the fall in traffic I would assume they aren't doing too great there anymore either)
My unclear use of "biggest" was supposed to refer to company turnover/revenue, contributor payout and as well as overall clout - I've seen nothing so far disputing those.
Got ya, okay that makes sense, I haven't seen anything to dispute that they are the top in terms of overall revenue, but equally I haven't seen their competitor's books so haven't seen any evidence either way.
As far as contributor payout they, as far as I can tell, are no longer the top earner for independents. But once you factor in all the exclusive they may have the edge in terms of money paid out.
Clout, I agree with Getty behind them yes.
And thanks to Eyedesign for the links, turns out I was wrong re. traffic in any case so they are still number one there.
-
..... don't forget they were first and are still the biggest.....
Is this still the case? I thought all indicators were that they have now fallen into second place in terms of site traffic?
Their collection size is certainly not the biggest either, so I think by any variable we are privy to this is no longer true.
(we can obviously speculate about profitability, but as by their own admission they have been operating with an unsustainable business model and given the fall in traffic I would assume they aren't doing too great there anymore either)
My unclear use of "biggest" was supposed to refer to company turnover/revenue, contributor payout and as well as overall clout - I've seen nothing so far disputing those.
Alexa Traffic Rank
Istock
Global Rank = 325
US Rank = 243
Huge drop at the end of 2010 (Nov-Dec) for istock in pageviews.
What cause the drop? Most here are hoping it's because buyers are
leaving. I would think if that was true we would see a different type
of chart.
Shutterstock
Global Rank = 374
US Rank = 419
Most people here seems to being using the measurement of Pageviews/User to show that Shutterstock is ahead. I think comparing
Bounce rate is also interesting.
Some more reading.
[url]http://www.virtu-software.com/ask-doug/QandA.asp?q=79[/url] ([url]http://www.virtu-software.com/ask-doug/QandA.asp?q=79[/url])
[url]http://www.kaushik.net/avinash/standard-metrics-revisited-6-daily-weekly-monthly-unique-visitors/[/url] ([url]http://www.kaushik.net/avinash/standard-metrics-revisited-6-daily-weekly-monthly-unique-visitors/[/url])
I've looked at the Alexa charts and similars a lot recently. It looks really odd which such a sudden decline in traffic. iStock seems too big to have that many buyers deciding alll at virtually the same time it was time to up and leave.
I'm more inclined to think that something changed in terms how iStock's traffic was measured. I'm by no means an expert, but with iStock having so many sub-domains (different regions/countries) and quite a complex web structure I'm thinking that perhaps something changed and now ALL of iStock's traffic is not captured in that chart?
-
Other than that, they are a descent company. :P
your typo is Freudian...;-)
Indeed! A decent typo. ;D
As good as the guy that posted a while ago here he wanted to shear his feelings. ::)
-
Food for thought!
Regardless of any business model or whatever. No business in the entire world can survive, sustain with a membership pf 15% and thats exactly the percentage of exclusive contributors at IS.
They know that! and dont really care since all 85 % end of with their images mirrored over at TS. However, at this rate it will take them 100 years to enginner just that. A further 20 years to sort out their bugs and glitches.
When its all over, Getty/H&F, will swallow them alive and the entire IS-admin, will be the first to get booted out. Expendible crew.
-
Hi Guys, I am new here, just want to introduce myself [url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/439280/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1833ac55[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/439280/?facets={%2225%22%3A%226%22}#1833ac55) [/url] .
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.
Welcome!
-
Yes, welcome Aldra. Terrific port. Good luck on the other side of the fence. I hope it works out well for you.
-
Alexa Traffic Rank
Istock
Global Rank = 325
US Rank = 243
Huge drop at the end of 2010 (Nov-Dec) for istock in pageviews.
What cause the drop? Most here are hoping it's because buyers are
leaving. I would think if that was true we would see a different type
of chart.
exactly ^ alexa is often quoted around here with glee...but if we pretend their stats are accurate, the drop in traffic is probably due simply to the huge change in the forums. at one point I personally visited the iStock forums maybe 50 times a day give or take. now....maybe three or four times per week. and I'm not alone. pageviews mean nothing. contributors have all but stopped going to iStock's forums except for important stuff.
-
Alexa Traffic Rank
Istock
Global Rank = 325
US Rank = 243
Huge drop at the end of 2010 (Nov-Dec) for istock in pageviews.
What cause the drop? Most here are hoping it's because buyers are
leaving. I would think if that was true we would see a different type
of chart.
exactly ^ alexa is often quoted around here with glee...but if we pretend their stats are accurate, the drop in traffic is probably due simply to the huge change in the forums. at one point I personally visited the iStock forums maybe 50 times a day give or take. now....maybe three or four times per week. and I'm not alone. pageviews mean nothing. contributors have all but stopped going to iStock's forums except for important stuff.
I so miss the page where you could see all the latest posts from all the sub-forum categories. It is very easy to miss out on important news/tidbits the way the forum is working now-a-days.
-
actually , I hated seeing those. I find the home page far more professional. forums shouldn't be front page IMO. but I guarantee that much of the lost traffic is contributors no longer going into forums.
-
Alexa Traffic Rank
Istock
Global Rank = 325
US Rank = 243
Most here are hoping it's because buyers are
leaving. I would think if that was true we would see a different type
of chart.
exactly ^ alexa is often quoted around here with glee...but if we pretend their stats are accurate, the drop in traffic is probably due simply to the huge change in the forums.
Activities in the forums are not like it used to be. Therefore traffic will be a lot lower.
Unfortunately some will interpret that as something different!
-
actually , I hated seeing those. I find the home page far more professional. forums shouldn't be front page IMO. but I guarantee that much of the lost traffic is contributors no longer going into forums.
I agree about it not being on the FP, but miss being able to see all the latest posts from various sub-forums (like you can here).
-
exactly ^ alexa is often quoted around here with glee...but if we pretend their stats are accurate, the drop in traffic is probably due simply to the huge change in the forums. [/quote]
Activities in the forums are not like it used to be. Therefore traffic will be a lot lower.
Unfortunately some will interpret that as something different!
[/quote]
Yes, that's it __ it's just less forum traffic. If we all keep saying it often enough then maybe it will come true.
Out of interest how would 'forum traffic' explain why my earnings at Istock have steadily slipped from 40% of my total 18 months ago to just 24% this month?
-
I sincerly doubt that anyone here is hoping that istock customers leave and lead to a drop in traffic.
The fact remains that istock management have remained completely silent about the terrible drop in traffic and haven´t offered a single explanation to their contributor base. This is drop of over 70% depending on which stats page you look at.
If the traffic loss was because of some google seo change magic I am sure they would have told us immediatly. It is not in their interest to be perceived as a "failing site".
The silence about the traffic loss is the scary part, not the loss itself.
Add this to the depressing monthly threads, site bugs, abruptly disappearing KW, refunds, the unreliability in any announcements, inability to meet deadlines they set themselves and then the video artists reporting slow sales although they are supplying a growth market that is just starting out...
I would love to believe that all is well with istock, but if they continue to avoid communicating about the issues that contributors are worried about, they will have to live with the lack of trust and exclusive contributors spreading out into the larger stock market.
We are all digital entrepreneurs here, if we didn´t know how to spot a trend, we wouldn´t have become so successful.
-
Out of interest how would 'forum traffic' explain why my earnings at Istock have steadily slipped from 40% of my total 18 months ago to just 24% this month?
It wouldn't. Things that would explain it could be that you haven't uploaded much and the best match favors new images, or 18 months ago nonexclusive files were better placed, or lots of new images were added in categories that you did well in, or that other sites have gone up, or that your rate dropped since then, or that you had a few more ELs then, who knows what explains it but I'm pretty sure that forum traffic doesn't. It may be that buyers have left but there are many other factors that could explain your drop.
-
I sincerly doubt that anyone here is hoping that istock customers leave and lead to a drop in traffic.
Why? I'd be happy to see customers move from a site that pay a pittance % to somewhere fairer
-
It may be that buyers have left but there are many other factors that could explain your drop.
All the factors you mentioned could certainly explain one person's drop. However it is more difficult to explain away when it's happening to so many people
-
I would say that the drop in forum traffic IS a sign of the drop in sales. Not all of them, but certainly an indication. Many of the contributors (myself included) who now less frequent the forums also stopped purchasing, or significantly scaled back, from iStock. I used to purchase exclusively from iStock and now I can't think of the last time I bought an image there. One factor that keeps slipping here is the large amount of contributors who are also buyers.
-
It may be that buyers have left but there are many other factors that could explain your drop.
All the factors you mentioned could certainly explain one person's drop. However it is more difficult to explain away when it's happening to so many people
Do you know if anyone has been following istockcharts? There are stats on total DLs there so the overall trend should be easy to see if someone kept records of it.
-
I would say that the drop in forum traffic IS a sign of the drop in sales. Not all of them, but certainly an indication. Many of the contributors (myself included) who now less frequent the forums also stopped purchasing, or significantly scaled back, from iStock. I used to purchase exclusively from iStock and now I can't think of the last time I bought an image there. One factor that keeps slipping here is the large amount of contributors who are also buyers.
Where did you source that data? It's a guess? Yes, we know some contributors are buyers as well , yes, but... Have they a real significance in sales volume? I doubt it, but I don't know. Nor anybody else knows... except istock management. They have the data, they know exactly how much of the business comes from the "contributor-buyer". If this percentage was really significant, probably they would be more careful to not dissapoint contributors.
-
^ I think if you were to combine all these theories, divide them by 42...and add some eye of newt...we'd get a real answer. as in, the truth is obviously a combination of factors.
specifically @gostwyck...I'm not telling myself the drop in traffic is forum conversations. that's just silly. I think that is one factor that is being completely ignored here though. I do believe iStock has alienated buyers and contributors, without question. the question is, how does this alienation compare in numbers to past years? we will never have that information.
I agree with Jasmin, however, that silence is scary. it may as well confirm the fear since they're not quelling it with numbers. why not brag if you've got the numbers?
-
It may be that buyers have left but there are many other factors that could explain your drop.
All the factors you mentioned could certainly explain one person's drop. However it is more difficult to explain away when it's happening to so many people
Do you know if anyone has been following istockcharts? There are stats on total DLs there so the overall trend should be easy to see if someone kept records of it.
I'm sure someone said they were keeping some historical data. Alternatively, it may be possible for (almost) anybody to track some of the changes by using the "wayback machine" which archives historical data from sites. Unfortunately, I can't access it here because of the ISP firewall.
-
specifically @gostwyck...I'm not telling myself the drop in traffic is forum conversations. that's just silly. I think that is one factor that is being completely ignored here though. I do believe iStock has alienated buyers and contributors, without question. the question is, how does this alienation compare in numbers to past years? we will never have that information.
I agree with Jasmin, however, that silence is scary. it may as well confirm the fear since they're not quelling it with numbers. why not brag if you've got the numbers?
Agreed, Jasmine's post was excellent. Even when Istock have an obvious opportunity to 'brag' about their numbers, for example when they announced this year's RC targets, they delayed and prevaricated for as long as possible before finally coming up with "er ... no change". Exactly what we all predicted here months previously. They'll probably do the same again this year too unless they feel forced into lowering the RC targets because too many exclusives are leaving.
What amazes me with Istock is how they appear to be transfixed, like a deer in the headlights, unable to take any action to save themselves. Unfortunately I think the only route back they may have is to roll back the price increases and the commission cuts and hope that their customers/contributors might forgive them. Of course doing that would mean that their income (and in particular that of their exclusives) would also immediately be reduced even further, thus compounding the situation they find themselves in. They can't go forwards and going backwards is too painful for them to contemplate.
-
I sincerly doubt that anyone here is hoping that istock customers leave and lead to a drop in traffic.
Why? I'd be happy to see customers move from a site that pay a pittance % to somewhere fairer
I too would love to see most buyers leave IS and FT and migrate to sites that pay a better %age. Both to send a rock solid message to the other sites that dropping %ages isn't the way to get ahead and for my own personal greed. If I was only going on personal greed I'd hope they could keep just enough sales to keep the big exclusives from leaving - I am skeptical of that now though.
I think IS has been hiding the drop in revenue for exclusives by slowly lowering indy sales (through best match). Unfortunately for IS eventually they won't be able to keep doing that and the exclusives will start to notice. I think that high level exclusives are still probably doing fairly well at IS and would take a big hit to leave, but if the IS line is only going up slowly or even going down and the other sites are going up more rapidly at some point you are going to want to get onto the faster rising sites.
As far as all the alexa rankings etc. - they do suggest a drop at IS - one thing to consider is that the SS rankings might only be for the buyer side and all the forum and checking stats etc. is all on submit.shutterstock.com
Aldra - that port should do well anywhere. Wow.
-
I think it's ridiculous to see contributors posting that they hope any agency loses customers. ^ it is a post like that that reminds that many comments here should be taken with with a massive
grain chip of salt sitting on a number of shoulders around here
-
Hmmmm a poll to gather feelings on iStock?
My opinion ... we do not need a poll. They are just one of many agencies. iStock gets far too much press. Just count the threads.
::)
-
Hmmmm a poll to gather feelings on iStock?
My opinion ... we do not need a poll. They are just one of many agencies. iStock gets far too much press. Just count the threads.
::)
that's because iStock has a lot of bitter ex girlfriends ;)
-
I think it's ridiculous to see contributors posting that they hope any agency loses customers. ^ it is a post like that that reminds that many comments here should be taken with with a massive grain chip of salt sitting on a number of shoulders around here
Its ridiculous to want customers to buy images where I get the most money per sale?
-
that's because iStock has a lot of bitter ex girlfriends ;)
I've never been anyone's girlfriend, but being with iStock does have some of the features of an abusive relationship. I feel a whole lot better now that I'm out of it, and I'd like to see the abuser get what's coming to it. Don't even feel bad about about my vindictive feelings either. I'm happy to see iStock suffer, given what they did and tried to do to me and others. I'm sorry for those who haven't made the break, but don't see that pretending all's well will do them any good long term. Or maybe I'm just mean. Yeah, that's it.
-
My problem is that "alexa" graph .... looks pretty similar as "Aldra" graph. hmmm ....maybe just my buyers left .. who knows ?
-
My problem is that "alexa" graph .... looks pretty similar as "Aldra" graph. hmmm ....maybe just my buyers left .. who knows ?
I would look at what happened at istock from 2005-2010 more like an IPO in the stock market. You got in at the right time and made huge returns with relativly little investment. All the contributors with the gold cameras next to their name probably shouldn't expect to find the same returns in the future inside or outside of istock.
-
I always "get in at the right time ... ", and .... I always get out
-
I always "get in at the right time ... ", and .... I always get out
Let us know how it works out for you. Remember if you put files on dreamstime you can't take them off for 6 months, so if you do see a drop of 80-85% (which was reported in another thread here) you won't be able to go back exclusive until that time is up.
-
Let us know how it works out for you. Remember if you put files on dreamstime you can't take them off for 6 months, so if you do see a drop of 80-85% (which was reported in another thread here) you won't be able to go back exclusive until that time is up.
This isn't about 'the next 3 months'. You've got to think about where the market for your work is going to be in the next 5 years and work towards that vision. Do you remember Istock's massive commission cuts in Sept 2010? Well, if they'd actually managed to get away with that one, you can be pretty sure they'd now be lining us up for another cut ... and another ... and another. That's the trouble with a company owned by a hedge fund. They were always going to bleed it dry before they sold it on. It just so happens on this occasion that they pushed it too hard and too fast ... and then it broke.
-
Let us know how it works out for you. Remember if you put files on dreamstime you can't take them off for 6 months, so if you do see a drop of 80-85% (which was reported in another thread here) you won't be able to go back exclusive until that time is up.
If anyone is looking at dropping the crown as a 6-months-or-less trial, don't do it. It's not for you.
-
Whether you're becoming exclusive or leaving it, you can't possibly see the full picture without a full year in the new environment. It is certainly worth considering the constraints of the contracts with any site you contribute to, including the 6 month lock at DT and 3 month one at BigStock.
-
Why am I getting the feeling that they've almost given up on the site themselves? :(
-
Why am I getting the feeling that they've almost given up on the site themselves? :(
Because, constrained by targets from Getty/H&F and nobody with any authority to take any meaningful action, they have little choice. It's almost like a patient with a 'Do Not Resuscitate' notice on the end of the bed.
-
Why am I getting the feeling that they've almost given up on the site themselves? :(
Because, constrained by targets from Getty/H&F and nobody with any authority to take any meaningful action, they have little choice. It's almost like a patient with a 'Do Not Resuscitate' notice on the end of the bed.
A very fitting analogy. It does feel like that --often. But then thinking back, if that's the case, how / why are they coming out with new things like the so-called "cutting edge technology" that they tried to implement that broke the site before they ever got the first bugs fixed.
And tonight the announcement of a new "Facebook E-card App" -- I don't get it. It's like doing plastic surgery on that patient with the DNR at the end of the bed (I suck at analogies, but you get the general drift -- it's like why bother).
-
I always "get in at the right time ... ", and .... I always get out
Aldra, you have the heart of a lion. No doubt the alarm bells and flashing lights are going off at Istock HQ. I doubt the accountants factored this scenario into the "Ten step plan to 20% payouts".
Best of Luck! You have an amazing portfolio!
-
Hmmmm a poll to gather feelings on iStock?
My opinion ... we do not need a poll. They are just one of many agencies. iStock gets far too much press. Just count the threads.
::)
This poll was started a while ago to answer a specific point.
There were some people who would say whenever criticism of IStock came up that it was just a vocal minority that was unhappy with the site and the vast majority still were on board, just scared to say so.
Well the poll results speak for themselves, and actually the threads about IStock have been mercifully free of the claim since it went up
-
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.
Yuri is a top professional, with huge costs (employees, studio, models, ...) and top gear producing 40+ Megapixels pictures - he can earn a lot just from selling XXL compared to smaller sizes. For us, the difference between credits and subs is less, our royalty at IS is ridiculous (17%, most probably down to 16% next year in my case) while at SS we are earning the same % as Yuri, and IS has always been just #2 or #3 (even in good times), never #1.
Between him and complete wannabe photographers there are a lot of intermediate advanced hobbystics - that's how I define myself - which can surpass or at least cover IS losses with more sales at SS.
I'm not rejoicing for the decline of IS, and I am very sorry for fellow photographers which expected most of their income from IS, it must be scary. But from a purely financial point of view, I am not sure this situation is damaging me.
I'm not saying I don't believe what Yuri is reporting - just that his case is not representative for everyone.
You are probably right that his sample is representative of many "big guy/gal"s though.
-
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.
Yuri is a top professional, with huge costs (employees, studio, models, ...) and top gear producing 40+ Megapixels pictures - he can earn a lot just from selling XXL compared to smaller sizes. For us, the difference between credits and subs is less, our royalty at IS is ridiculous (17%, most probably down to 16% next year in my case) while at SS we are earning the same % as Yuri, and IS has always been just #2 or #3 (even in good times), never #1.
Between him and complete wannabe photographers there are a lot of intermediate advanced hobbystics - that's how I define myself - which can surpass or at least cover IS losses with more sales at SS.
I'm not rejoicing for the decline of IS, and I am very sorry for fellow photographers which expected most of their income from IS, it must be scary. But from a purely financial point of view, I am not sure this situation is damaging me.
I'm not saying I don't believe what Yuri is reporting - just that his case is not representative for everyone.
You are probably right that his sample is representative of many "big guy/gal"s though.
This ^ is a well thought out reply to my post.
My point was that if IS goes down in sales as it is reported from the top selling independent artist the personal results are not good. Another big selling independent on here also reports lower overall sales this year which looks like the fault of IS sales falling. The theory was if Istock goes down and I don't have all my eggs in one basket then I am better off. It appears that the loss of $$$$ by never going exclusive with IS is not being payed out now that IS sales are falling. Which means the $1.50 loss suffered per download by not going with IS only is not being made up on the back end of being independent. So far that bet is not paying off. If istock lost all the exclusives, the only separation from the sites would be price. How would the contributor win in that scenario?
-
This ^ is a well thought out reply to my post.
My point was that if IS goes down in sales as it is reported from the top selling independent artist the personal results are not good. Another big selling independent on here also reports lower overall sales this year which looks like the fault of IS sales falling. The theory was if Istock goes down and I don't have all my eggs in one basket then I am better off. It appears that the loss of $$$$ by never going exclusive with IS is not being payed out now that IS sales are falling. Which means the $1.50 loss suffered per download by not going with IS only is not being made up on the back end of being independent. So far that bet is not paying off. If istock lost all the exclusives, the only separation from the sites would be price. How would the contributor win in that scenario?
You forget that SS is not the only other site out there. The insurance policy from independence is from the total spread, not just from one site. Last month, SS was 30% of my total income, iS was 16%. It's obvious, though, that one sale transferred from a site with an average payout of $1.50 per sale to one with a payout of 60c per sale is not going to cover all the loss.
It's possible that we may never make up what we have lost through rejecting exclusivity but we'll never know.
On the other hand, if iStock collapses, will unemployed exclusives even get a foot in the door at other sites? At least one is complaining that he can't get accepted at SS. So the insurance might have a long payout period.
In any case, there's no point in crying over spilt milk.
-
You forget that SS is not the only other site out there. The insurance policy from independence is from the total spread, not just from one site. Last month, SS was 30% of my total income, iS was 16%. It's obvious, though, that one sale transferred from a site with an average payout of $1.50 per sale to one with a payout of 60c per sale is not going to cover all the loss.
It's possible that we may never make up what we have lost through rejecting exclusivity but we'll never know.
On the other hand, if iStock collapses, will unemployed exclusives even get a foot in the door at other sites? At least one is complaining that he can't get accepted at SS. So the insurance might have a long payout period.
In any case, there's no point in crying over spilt milk.
True that the milk is gone, but sharing the story on how it happened could help others. ;D
-
Another big selling independent on here also reports lower overall sales this year which looks like the fault of IS sales falling.
I'm in the same boat as Yuri and many others, the sales lost from iStockphoto to Shutterstock has meant less commission in my pocket.
-
I'm in the same boat as Yuri and many others, the sales lost from iStockphoto to Shutterstock has meant less commission in my pocket.
I'm not really finding that. The increase in my SS earnings, mainly through a huge increase in OD sales, has almost exactly compensated for what I've lost at IS. Over the last couple of years they have simply swapped around from 25/40% of earnings respectively before to 40/25% now. Of course we lost money at IS from the commission cuts but then have been compensated by Photo+. I also think that some of SS's gain has been at the expense of FT and possibly DT too. It's not a simple equation.
I have a feeling however that 2012 may well be an extremely turbulent year for our industry. Unless TPTB at Istock can turn their ship around, and quickly, they could have a crisis on their hands before the summer arrives. If sales continue to decline for a few more months then I can't see exclusives sitting on their hands and just accepting it. Istock have been trying to buy themselves time by favouring exclusives in the best match and, if they have any sense, they will attempt to buy more time by reducing RC targets for exclusives __ if their masters allow them to do so. Will Istock impose yet more price increases on their customers? It's going to be interesting.
-
No, me neither, I am not having less money in my pocket because of lost sales to IS, on the contrary, September and October, produced exactly the same as last years if not a bit more in fact.
From a money aspect, I dont think I have lost anything and wont in futeure either.
-
I have a feeling however that 2012 may well be an extremely turbulent year for our industry. Unless TPTB at Istock can turn their ship around...
Why is the fate of the industry viewed as always being in the hands of istock/getty? istock is not the microstock industry. They're not even the market leader anymore, and really from where I'm sitting, they're hardly even top-5 material.
Frankly I couldn't care less about istock right now or how they'll fare in 2012. This month istock is on pace to represent around 7% of my total microstock earnings, and that number is falling regularly. They're pretty much insignificant to me at this point, as long as they're on this rapid downhill slide. SS is killing it as usual, on pace for back-to-back BMEs. GraphicRiver is surging like crazy. I've already earned double what I earned in November, way past a BME and we're just halfway through December. DT is looking good. GL also, and Veer. Those are the companies I care about and will be watching for growth from in 2012. They are the microstock industry right now, at least from my point of view.
istock can fall apart completely as far as I'm concerned. And I know it gets under the skin of exclusives to hear us independents hoping for the collapse of that company, but I find nothing wrong with hoping for continued growth from companies that seem to be able to still do it right these days, even if it's at the expense of istock or any other company on the decline.
If istock rallies and makes a comeback, great. I'm still uploading (occasionally) there. I'd love to see things pick up and earn something for the time spent. But right now, on the trajectory they seem to be on, I don't see that happening, and I'd be fine with watching them sink into the abyss. That's the benefit of being independent. I have no reason to care if one company sinks because there are always others rising.
No one company is the microstock industry, and no one company dictates where we go from here. Not istock, not SS, not anyone. I'll be watching things closely in 2012, just like everyone else. But istock will probably be the least of my concerns. Well, almost the least anyway. Cutcaster wins that distinction. I think time is just about up for that one.
-
if they have any sense, they will attempt to buy more time by reducing RC targets for exclusives __ if their masters allow them to do so. Will Istock impose yet more price increases on their customers? It's going to be interesting.
[/quote]
It will be interesting. I'd love to know how many 40% exclusives are going to "just" miss the target of 150,000. In my own case, I was confident I would make it until about August. Then the lack of a pre-holiday bump soon made me realise that I would not. Was the arrival of Rebecca at this time just a coincidence, or not?
When we see whether or not IS reduces the target, we will find out if they really want to keep exclusives, or lose them for short term gain.
-
And I know it gets under the skin of exclusives to hear us independents hoping for the collapse of that company, but I find nothing wrong with hoping for continued growth from companies that seem to be able to still do it right these days, even if it's at the expense of istock or any other company on the decline.
It doesn't get under my skin. I can see exactly why you feel the way you do. I imagine many exclusives feel the way I do, we aren't all woo-yayers!
I have done very well at IS, I'm convinced I've made far more as an exclusive than I would have done as an independent, based on the information given by independents in this forum. They don't owe me anything, and I feel I can cut them some slack for a while.
However, it is business, and what happens over the next few months will decide my future course. It will be interesting.
-
Why is the fate of the industry viewed as always being in the hands of istock/getty? istock is not the microstock industry. They're not even the market leader anymore, and really from where I'm sitting, they're hardly even top-5 material.
Istock probably are still the market leader in terms of $'s __ but only just in my estimation. If they were to collapse then the flood of previously exclusive contributors onto the other agencies, followed by many customers, would undoubtedly have a significant effect on your sales and mine at all other agencies. The same cannot be said of any other agency both because of the $ spend of their customer base and/or because they don't have so many exclusive contributors. That's why.
-
I'm in the same boat as Yuri and many others, the sales lost from iStockphoto to Shutterstock has meant less commission in my pocket.
I'm not really finding that. The increase in my SS earnings, mainly through a huge increase in OD sales, has almost exactly compensated for what I've lost at IS. Over the last couple of years they have simply swapped around from 25/40% of earnings respectively before to 40/25% now. Of course we lost money at IS from the commission cuts but then have been compensated by Photo+. I also think that some of SS's gain has been at the expense of FT and possibly DT too. It's not a simple equation.
But in the November sales thread you said:
On IS last month my average sale was $1.73 and on SS it was $0.62. However I sold 4.5x more images on SS so I made a lot more money there.
So taken as an average, every sale you lose from iS to SS costs you $1.11 in lower commission.
-
Istock probably are still the market leader in terms of $'s __ but only just in my estimation. If they were to collapse then the flood of previously exclusive contributors onto the other agencies, followed by many customers, would undoubtedly have a significant effect on your sales and mine at all other agencies. The same cannot be said of any other agency both because of the $ spend of their customer base and/or because they don't have so many exclusive contributors. That's why.
I've joked with some exclusives in this forums about staying exclusive, asking them not to drop the crown for my own benefit. But really, a mass exodus of exclusives doesn't worry me. I'd say right off the bat you can cut the pool of formerly exclusive content heading to other agencies in half, as SS and many others simply won't accept it with the "too many on site" rejections. Really there are maybe 5-10 people I'd really rather not see go independent because their work is similar to mine, only better. :)
And they're not always who you'd think. Much as I respect sodafish's work, I have no worries about him ever going independent because he mostly does icons and icons are very very rarely being accepted at SS anymore.
As far as buyers go, I think it would be better for the industry to have buyers move away from istock and into companies that serve both buyers and contributors better. Some agencies have thrown around the term "Fair Trade", and I'd love to see buyers taking their business to companies that operate on a more fair royalty plan and with pricing that also benefits the buyer. Everyone can benefit from that.
In general, I think if you take istock out of the equation the microstock business is better and stronger because of it.
-
On IS last month my average sale was $1.73 and on SS it was $0.62. However I sold 4.5x more images on SS so I made a lot more money there.
So taken as an average, every sale you lose from iS to SS costs you $1.11 in lower commission.
Subs are obviously not the same market as IS single image sales and never have been. With OD/EL sales my average commission at SS is $2.84 __ so on that basis every 'single image' sale that is transferred from IS to SS gains me $1.11. Just depends how you like your statistics served up.
Funnily enough the customer (for single image sales) is paying almost exactly the same average of $9.60 for my images on each site. The difference to me is that SS is paying me 30% of their money and IS only 18%.
-
Istock probably are still the market leader in terms of $'s __ but only just in my estimation. If they were to collapse then the flood of previously exclusive contributors onto the other agencies, followed by many customers, would undoubtedly have a significant effect on your sales and mine at all other agencies. The same cannot be said of any other agency both because of the $ spend of their customer base and/or because they don't have so many exclusive contributors. That's why.
I've joked with some exclusives in this forums about staying exclusive, asking them not to drop the crown for my own benefit. But really, a mass exodus of exclusives doesn't worry me. I'd say right off the bat you can cut the pool of formerly exclusive content heading to other agencies in half, as SS and many others simply won't accept it with the "too many on site" rejections. Really there are maybe 5-10 people I'd really rather not see go independent because their work is similar to mine, only better. :)
And they're not always who you'd think. Much as I respect sodafish's work, I have no worries about him ever going independent because he mostly does icons and icons are very very rarely being accepted at SS anymore.
As far as buyers go, I think it would be better for the industry to have buyers move away from istock and into companies that serve both buyers and contributors better. Some agencies have thrown around the term "Fair Trade", and I'd love to see buyers taking their business to companies that operate on a more fair royalty plan and with pricing that also benefits the buyer. Everyone can benefit from that.
In general, I think if you take istock out of the equation the microstock business is better and stronger because of it.
ridiculous. if iStock were to disappear, the focus would simply move to the next agency. and iStock is the only agency charging decent prices for images in microstock. be careful what you wish for or every one of your images will be sold for a penny before you know it.
-
I have a feeling however that 2012 may well be an extremely turbulent year for our industry. Unless TPTB at Istock can turn their ship around...
Why is the fate of the industry viewed as always being in the hands of istock/getty? istock is not the microstock industry. They're not even the market leader anymore, and really from where I'm sitting, they're hardly even top-5 material.
Frankly I couldn't care less about istock right now or how they'll fare in 2012. This month istock is on pace to represent around 7% of my total microstock earnings, and that number is falling regularly. They're pretty much insignificant to me at this point
This is why I did not quote your sales. I quoted the best selling independent contributor. I can find you smaller istock contributors that had BME last month. I notice you do not equate their success as istock is doing great. Therefore, if there is no istock then everybody is selling the same product in different bottles. How long before buyers realise and go to the cheapest bottler. It's business 101, they don't even have to drive to get the product.
-
On IS last month my average sale was $1.73 and on SS it was $0.62. However I sold 4.5x more images on SS so I made a lot more money there.
So taken as an average, every sale you lose from iS to SS costs you $1.11 in lower commission.
Subs are obviously not the same market as IS single image sales and never have been. With OD/EL sales my average commission at SS is $2.84 __ so on that basis every 'single image' sale that is transferred from IS to SS gains me $1.11. Just depends how you like your statistics served up.
Funnily enough the customer (for single image sales) is paying almost exactly the same average of $9.60 for my images on each site. The difference to me is that SS is paying me 30% of their money and IS only 18%.
I'm confused, when you quoted your average sale on SS as being $0.62 I presumed that took OD/EL sales into account, which it must do because if it didn't your average would be $0.38 - the highest amount SS pay for subscription sales.
Percentages mean nothing whatsoever, all I'm interested in is the financial figure, and my personal experience and others mentioned both here and in private conversations is that the 'assumed' migration of buyers from iS to SS is losing us money, like you I sell on average 5x the physical amount of images on SS as I do on iS however given the choice I would take every one of the sales on iS as apposed to SS any day of the week.
If you're better off financially as a result of recent disastrous management at iS then I am genuinely pleased for you.
-
And they're not always who you'd think. Much as I respect sodafish's work, I have no worries about him ever going independent because he mostly does icons and icons are very very rarely being accepted at SS anymore.
If things should go really bad at iStock, I will only be interested to upload my vectors to SS if they take my whole portfolio at once, not through the regular process. Otherwise there's no change I will drop the vector crown in the near distance, so you're right on that one. btw, Shutterstock is mainly subscription and that's something I don't want my vectors on for sale. Photo is different since JPG is not an open source format. But vectors are too easy (read: cheap) to copy and reproduce in their subscription model. That, in combination with the fact I still love iStock are the main reasons I won't upload a single vector. But hey, who knows what tomorrow brings ... :)
-
Did iStock just raise prices? It says get credits for as low as 1.04 on the homepage when last week I'm pretty sure it was .95?
-
Not sure exactly when it happened, but if you look here (http://web.archive.org/web/20110623053433/http://www.istockphoto.com/), you can see it used to say 95 cents. As I've seen sales where the credit price was in the high 40 cents range, I don't know what, if anything, the prices on the front page actually mean in practice.
Great time to raise prices, when your site is busted and you can't even give contributors a list of what you sold...
-
Did iStock just raise prices? It says get credits for as low as 1.04 on the homepage when last week I'm pretty sure it was .95?
maybe it is to go with the 10 and 15% discounts they were throwing about like election year candy.
-
ridiculous. if iStock were to disappear, the focus would simply move to the next agency. and iStock is the only agency charging decent prices for images in microstock. be careful what you wish for or every one of your images will be sold for a penny before you know it.
istock is overcharging, which I suspect is really the root of their problems. They left the microstock arena a long time ago.
People have been saying for years that the low-end suppliers would ruin the market. It hasn't happened. SS is surging despite still selling images for around $10 a piece (through on-demand) and selling subscriptions for several hundred dollars. The low end of the pricing spectrum hasn't disrupted their business. Same with DT. As far as I know, they're still doing well. My earnings there haven't suffered from cheaper operations. For us vector folks, everyone thought VectorStock would ruin things with their low-priced $1 vectors. It hasn't happened, and they've been receptive to actually raising prices lately.
If the fear tactic is what works to keep people exclusive, obviously it's working well. As I said earlier in this thread, istock is not the microstock market. They are not the glue that keeps things together. You can keep istock up on that pedestal, but I'm not drinking the kool-aid. And I have no doubt whatsoever that the rest of the microstock industry would grow and prosper in an istock-less world. Giving credit where it's due, istock kickstarted this whole thing and Bruce was a pioneer. No doubt about it. But today that company is a shell of it's former self and HQ has lost touch with the business, the people, and the customers. Other companies are doing it far better with far less. They're profitable, "sustainable", in many cases growing, and even some of those smaller underdogs are rising in the ranks and are positioned to give istock some serious trouble.
Times they are a-changing, and I would welcome the day that istock isn't a noticeable player in this business anymore. Personally, looking at my own books, it looks like that day may right around the corner.
-
If things should go really bad at iStock, I will only be interested to upload my vectors to SS if they take my whole portfolio at once, not through the regular process. Otherwise there's no change I will drop the vector crown in the near distance, so you're right on that one. btw, Shutterstock is mainly subscription and that's something I don't want my vectors on for sale. Photo is different since JPG is not an open source format. But vectors are too easy (read: cheap) to copy and reproduce in their subscription model. That, in combination with the fact I still love iStock are the main reasons I won't upload a single vector. But hey, who knows what tomorrow brings ... :)
It would be worth a shot. It's helpful to have a foot in the door with photos already, and you could probably contact them and discuss terms for accepting the whole portfolio. You'd be bringing some exceptional work to the table, so I think they'd be receptive to at least discussing a non-standard arrangement.
-
let me get this right, if iStock makes special arrangements for individual contributors (as is often insinuated here)....they're slimy, corrupt b*st*rds...but making special arrangements on a contributor basis with SS is a welcome means of getting iStock exclusives to become indie....gotta love how that works.....hypoCRITTERS abound here
-
ridiculous. if iStock were to disappear, the focus would simply move to the next agency. and iStock is the only agency charging decent prices for images in microstock. be careful what you wish for or every one of your images will be sold for a penny before you know it.
ain´t 7 cents a few pennies?
-
let me get this right, if iStock makes special arrangements for individual contributors (as is often insinuated here)....they're slimy, corrupt b*st*rds...but making special arrangements on a contributor basis with SS is a welcome means of getting iStock exclusives to become indie....gotta love how that works.....hypoCRITTERS abound here
Excuse me? Care to find a quote where I've ever said I was against contributors contacting ANY agency to discuss terms? Disagree with me all you want, but don't put words in my mouth that I never spoke.
-
Agreeing with Luis here.
Surely iStock's 7c commission is the lowest in the industry. Correct me if I'm wrong here. I haven't seen anything as low as that from any other agency.
-
let me get this right, if iStock makes special arrangements for individual contributors (as is often insinuated here)....they're slimy, corrupt b*st*rds...but making special arrangements on a contributor basis with SS is a welcome means of getting iStock exclusives to become indie....gotta love how that works.....hypoCRITTERS abound here
Excuse me? Care to find a quote where I've ever said I was against contributors contacting ANY agency to discuss terms? Disagree with me all you want, but don't put words in my mouth that I never spoke.
my comment wasn't a personal accusation...it was about the general tone of dissent over a practice like this in regards to favoritism a la iStock. and yet here we have it being encouraged...
-
Agreeing with Luis here.
Surely iStock's 7c commission is the lowest in the industry. Correct me if I'm wrong here. I haven't seen anything as low as that from any other agency.
Nah Dreamstime has 300,000 images for free, that's the lowest. I was just glancing at some of them, one guy has a free file there that got 1,700 DLs (which is 200 more than his entire portfolio sold) and the very similar one in his port has 5 downloads. I would imagine he's given away a few sales for $0.00.
-
Agreeing with Luis here.
Surely iStock's 7c commission is the lowest in the industry. Correct me if I'm wrong here. I haven't seen anything as low as that from any other agency.
Nah Dreamstime has 300,000 images for free, that's the lowest. I was just glancing at some of them, one guy has a free file there that got 1,700 DLs (which is 200 more than his entire portfolio sold) and the very similar one in his port has 5 downloads. I would imagine he's given away a few sales for $0.00.
-
my comment wasn't a personal accusation...it was about the general tone of dissent over a practice like this in regards to favoritism a la iStock. and yet here we have it being encouraged...
Sorry if I took it that way. Your comment followed my post on the same subject, so I thought you were responding directly to me.
I've never been against unique deals, special arrangements, negotiations, etc., when it comes to dealings with stock agencies, at istock or anywhere else. And really I'm not familiar with any of the discussions here about folks being upset with istock for making special arrangements with anyone. If that's taking place, I'm all for it and good for anyone who has been able to negotiate a better deal for themselves.
There's no Independent Artist Handbook, you know. Not every indy contributor is of the same opinion on everything. :)
-
Agreeing with Luis here.
Surely iStock's 7c commission is the lowest in the industry. Correct me if I'm wrong here. I haven't seen anything as low as that from any other agency.
Nah Dreamstime has 300,000 images for free, that's the lowest. I was just glancing at some of them, one guy has a free file there that got 1,700 DLs (which is 200 more than his entire portfolio sold) and the very similar one in his port has 5 downloads. I would imagine he's given away a few sales for $0.00.
Or how about the millions on flickr?
Or the potentially billions that can be found through Google Image Search?
Anyone care to guess how many bloggers or small-time website builders / brochure designers simply do Google searches on what they need, find something large enough and without a watermark, and just "borrow it"? And in many cases, they're lifting something that someone else has already lifted, so the trail back to the original piece of art that was stolen is too twisted to follow.
Given this perspective, free collections on places like Dreamstime are pretty smart. They pull in people just looking for free stuff, with the hope of hooking them into paying a buck or two down the road.
-
my comment wasn't a personal accusation...it was about the general tone of dissent over a practice like this in regards to favoritism a la iStock. and yet here we have it being encouraged...
Sorry if I took it that way. Your comment followed my post on the same subject, so I thought you were responding directly to me.
I've never been against unique deals, special arrangements, negotiations, etc., when it comes to dealings with stock agencies, at istock or anywhere else. And really I'm not familiar with any of the discussions here about folks being upset with istock for making special arrangements with anyone. If that's taking place, I'm all for it and good for anyone who has been able to negotiate a better deal for themselves.
There's no Independent Artist Handbook, you know. Not every indy contributor is of the same opinion on everything. :)
point taken. sorry for stereotyping you
-
Or how about the millions on flickr?
Or the potentially billions that can be found through Google Image Search?
Anyone care to guess how many bloggers or small-time website builders / brochure designers simply do Google searches on what they need, find something large enough and without a watermark, and just "borrow it"? And in many cases, they're lifting something that someone else has already lifted, so the trail back to the original piece of art that was stolen is too twisted to follow.
Given this perspective, free collections on places like Dreamstime are pretty smart. They pull in people just looking for free stuff, with the hope of hooking them into paying a buck or two down the road.
Stealing an image from someone is different than what dreamstime is offering:
"The high resolution images downloaded from the free section may be used under the terms mentioned for the regular Royalty Free license".
In my example 1700 free dls and 5 sales, why would you pay for something you can get for free (stealing doesn't get you the license to use it).
-
Or how about the millions on flickr?
Or the potentially billions that can be found through Google Image Search?
Anyone care to guess how many bloggers or small-time website builders / brochure designers simply do Google searches on what they need, find something large enough and without a watermark, and just "borrow it"? And in many cases, they're lifting something that someone else has already lifted, so the trail back to the original piece of art that was stolen is too twisted to follow.
Given this perspective, free collections on places like Dreamstime are pretty smart. They pull in people just looking for free stuff, with the hope of hooking them into paying a buck or two down the road.
Stealing an image from someone is different than what dreamstime is offering:
"The high resolution images downloaded from the free section may be used under the terms mentioned for the regular Royalty Free license".
In my example 1700 free dls and 5 sales, why would you pay for something you can get for free (stealing doesn't get you the license to use it).
Of course it's different. My point is that from the perspective of a person looking for an image, he/she can go to a high price agency, low price agency, or find something for free. These options all compete with one another. The images you're trying to sell are in direct competition with many similar images that are easily obtained for free. It looked like this conversation was turning into a complaint against low-cost selling or even free collections, and I was pointing out that there's a competitive need for approaches like this. If microstock is going to survive, it has to wake up to this reality and do things like offer sets of images very cheap or even free as hooks to lure in people who would otherwise just steal.
-
If microstock is going to survive, it has to wake up to this reality and do things like offer sets of images very cheap or even free as hooks to lure in people who would otherwise just steal.
I guess it's true that if we give all our images away for free it will stop people from stealing them.
-
I've never been against unique deals, special arrangements, negotiations, etc., when it comes to dealings with stock agencies, at istock or anywhere else. And really I'm not familiar with any of the discussions here about folks being upset with istock for making special arrangements with anyone. If that's taking place, I'm all for it and good for anyone who has been able to negotiate a better deal for themselves.
+1.
If any agency wants to give me a better deal than others get, you bet I'll take it. Of course, that cuts both ways. If I hear that someone else whom I consider a peer is getting a good deal, I may press for one myself. It's a free market, and everyone should be able to go for what they deserve. I've never been too keen on the union idea for this reason. I want to sink or swim by my own merits, not be lumped in with a collective and commoditize myself.
-
Did iStock just raise prices? It says get credits for as low as 1.04 on the homepage when last week I'm pretty sure it was .95?
I'm pretty sure it was after the fraud 6 months ago when they started making you call in for the big discounts.
-
I've never been against unique deals, special arrangements, negotiations, etc., when it comes to dealings with stock agencies, at istock or anywhere else. And really I'm not familiar with any of the discussions here about folks being upset with istock for making special arrangements with anyone. If that's taking place, I'm all for it and good for anyone who has been able to negotiate a better deal for themselves.
Same here. I have never heard of Istock offering special deals to contributors, although I do vaguely remember some contributors asking for special deals and getting shot down.
The only discussions I have read that remotely touch on special treatment are people (exclusives among them) upset by the double standards for Agency and Edstock content. But that's more a special deal for Getty content itself, not individual contributors.
-
Of course it's different. My point is that from the perspective of a person looking for an image, he/she can go to a high price agency, low price agency, or find something for free. These options all compete with one another. The images you're trying to sell are in direct competition with many similar images that are easily obtained for free. It looked like this conversation was turning into a complaint against low-cost selling or even free collections, and I was pointing out that there's a competitive need for approaches like this. If microstock is going to survive, it has to wake up to this reality and do things like offer sets of images very cheap or even free as hooks to lure in people who would otherwise just steal.
Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't think there is any contradiction in offering a few select free images on DT and complaining about .07 or .09 royalties on Istock.
I have a few freebies on DT. They are very old images that have not sold anywhere, and each of them links to much better content in my active portfolio, which gives me exposure.
The pitiful <.10 royalties on Istock are for the main collection of images, including best sellers, new content, etc. And unlike donating free images, we have no choice at all, short of removing our entire portfolios. It's insulting.
-
I've never been against unique deals, special arrangements, negotiations, etc., when it comes to dealings with stock agencies, at istock or anywhere else. And really I'm not familiar with any of the discussions here about folks being upset with istock for making special arrangements with anyone. If that's taking place, I'm all for it and good for anyone who has been able to negotiate a better deal for themselves.
Same here. I have never heard of Istock offering special deals to contributors, although I do vaguely remember some contributors asking for special deals and getting shot down.
The only discussions I have read that remotely touch on special treatment are people (exclusives among them) upset by the double standards for Agency and Edstock content. But that's more a special deal for Getty content itself, not individual contributors.
There must, presumably, have been special iStock deals, such as the pseudo-exclusives, and the fairly new contributors who have all their files initially placed at Vetta and bumped in best match (e.g. CSA_Images) or at Agency (e.g. Clerkenwell_Images, Rubberball)
Adeed: Ooops, sorry, I should have read your third paragraph before replying to your second.
-
I've never been against unique deals, special arrangements, negotiations, etc., when it comes to dealings with stock agencies, at istock or anywhere else. And really I'm not familiar with any of the discussions here about folks being upset with istock for making special arrangements with anyone. If that's taking place, I'm all for it and good for anyone who has been able to negotiate a better deal for themselves.
Same here. I have never heard of Istock offering special deals to contributors, although I do vaguely remember some contributors asking for special deals and getting shot down.
The only discussions I have read that remotely touch on special treatment are people (exclusives among them) upset by the double standards for Agency and Edstock content. But that's more a special deal for Getty content itself, not individual contributors.
That and the fact some peeps there can inspect their own files without having to wait in the queue, and there's this elite group of contributors who get their files moved into vetta, into istock lightboxes, in front of the searches etc (im not talking about those pseudo-exclusives here, but about 'regular' contributors who seem to be the favourite sweethearts). THAT's favouritism, not peeps trying to negotiate a deal...
-
Of course it's different. My point is that from the perspective of a person looking for an image, he/she can go to a high price agency, low price agency, or find something for free. These options all compete with one another. The images you're trying to sell are in direct competition with many similar images that are easily obtained for free. It looked like this conversation was turning into a complaint against low-cost selling or even free collections, and I was pointing out that there's a competitive need for approaches like this. If microstock is going to survive, it has to wake up to this reality and do things like offer sets of images very cheap or even free as hooks to lure in people who would otherwise just steal.
Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't think there is any contradiction in offering a few select free images on DT and complaining about .07 or .09 royalties on Istock.
I have a few freebies on DT. They are very old images that have not sold anywhere, and each of them links to much better content in my active portfolio, which gives me exposure.
The pitiful <.10 royalties on Istock are for the main collection of images, including best sellers, new content, etc. And unlike donating free images, we have no choice at all, short of removing our entire portfolios. It's insulting.
What are you talking about? I've never gotten a royalty as low as that, the lowest has been in Thinkstock (about $0.38)
-
The pitiful <.10 royalties on Istock are for the main collection of images, including best sellers, new content, etc. And unlike donating free images, we have no choice at all, short of removing our entire portfolios. It's insulting.
Exactly!
That's the point. I don't offer free images anywhere, because I have a choice. But when it comes to <.10c royalties at iStock, as you say, the only option is to pull the port.
So I return to my original point and ask again... at that level, isn't iStock's return the lowest in the industry?
-
The pitiful <.10 royalties on Istock are for the main collection of images, including best sellers, new content, etc. And unlike donating free images, we have no choice at all, short of removing our entire portfolios. It's insulting.
What are you talking about? I've never gotten a royalty as low as that, the lowest has been in Thinkstock (about $0.38)
Who said that you had a <10c royalty? It's not all about you.
There have been a few posts with really tiny royalties reported, under half of my first sale (Sm) in 2006.
-
That and the fact some peeps there can inspect their own files without having to wait in the queue, and there's this elite group of contributors who get their files moved into vetta, into istock lightboxes, in front of the searches etc (im not talking about those pseudo-exclusives here, but about 'regular' contributors who seem to be the favourite sweethearts). THAT's favouritism, not peeps trying to negotiate a deal...
Actually, I call that corruption, not favouritism, because I suspect it is people doing things that have not been approved by the company. It's a bit like insider trading, where by abusing a trusted position you can take money out of other peoples' pockets and put it in your own.
-
That and the fact some peeps there can inspect their own files without having to wait in the queue, and there's this elite group of contributors who get their files moved into vetta, into istock lightboxes, in front of the searches etc (im not talking about those pseudo-exclusives here, but about 'regular' contributors who seem to be the favourite sweethearts). THAT's favouritism, not peeps trying to negotiate a deal...
Actually, I call that corruption, not favouritism, because I suspect it is people doing things that have not been approved by the company. It's a bit like insider trading, where by abusing a trusted position you can take money out of other peoples' pockets and put it in your own.
The first, inspecting their own files, was certainly OKd by JJRD officially on the forums. One of them (I'm only guessing, but the evidence points to it) was a nightmare keyworder for a while, but seems to have improved.