MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: X9D7CE84A2B5Y on June 04, 2016, 03:38
-
Vote in the above Poll. Where do you fall in?
-
Thank you all for voting so far. Please vote if you are presently an iStock contributor. The more votes we have the better we may be able to see a pattern and understand which people have been effected/hurt the most.
-
By the way, I should have added the basis for calculating your drop. In my case I took my BME, which was actually March 2012 and compared it to what my checkout payment amount will be later this month for May.
-
Thank you all for voting so far. Please vote if you are presently an iStock contributor. The more votes we have the better we may be able to see a pattern and understand which people have been effected/hurt the most.
Great idea. Perhaps it can be of help to Exclusives to give them an idea if being indy (with pictures prices being 1/3 the price for buyers) means you sell and make more. If enough people vote it could give people an indication if they should give up the crown. If they can earn more on iStock than they are now as an indy, and put up their files on all the other sites, then they could end up making more in the long run.
The monthly iStock exclusive polling results on the right might not be a good enough matrix to gauge things by if you get more istock exclusive contributors voting on that poll than from the other sites. But this poll is good because it measures the results of just iStock contributors and gives breakdowns of how much their income has dropped since 2012.
-
By the way, I should have added the basis for calculating your drop. In my case I took my BME, which was actually March 2012 and compared it to what my checkout payment amount will be later this month for May.
Oh, if I compared my BME to any month this year, my drop would be much more than I voted. I compared 2015's total to 2012's total.
-
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.
-
By the way, I should have added the basis for calculating your drop. In my case I took my BME, which was actually March 2012 and compared it to what my checkout payment amount will be later this month for May.
Oh, if I compared my BME to any month this year, my drop would be much more than I voted. I compared 2015's total to 2012's total.
Very sorry for not clarifying that earlier. I should have laid down the parameters at the onset. Anyway, thank you for voting. Your vote will still help.
-
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.
True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.
So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.
The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?
-
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.
True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.
So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.
The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?
Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.
-
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.
True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.
So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.
The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?
Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.
Good theory thanks. But if Indies are adding video wouldn't exclusives be adding video too to offset their drop in image sales?
-
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.
True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.
So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.
The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?
Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.
Good theory thanks. But if Indies are adding video wouldn't exclusives be adding video too to offset their drop in image sales?
Certainly feasible, but it's also possible that while exclusives are locked into a specific revenue pipeline, indy's are not. So expanding video to, say, 5-6 new outlets could answer that hypothesis.
-
Some independents may have just started out.
-
Some independents may have just started out.
If that were the case, then they wouldn't have any 2012 income to compare against.
-
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.
True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.
So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.
The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?
Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.
Good theory thanks. But if Indies are adding video wouldn't exclusives be adding video too to offset their drop in image sales?
Certainly feasible, but it's also possible that while exclusives are locked into a specific revenue pipeline, indy's are not. So expanding video to, say, 5-6 new outlets could answer that hypothesis.
Sorry, I am not sure I follow your train of thought here. Please let me kindly remind you that we are talking purely about iStock income here for both independents and exclusives from 2012 until now. Not sales of video on other outlets.
-
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.
True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.
So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.
The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?
Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.
Good theory thanks. But if Indies are adding video wouldn't exclusives be adding video too to offset their drop in image sales?
Certainly feasible, but it's also possible that while exclusives are locked into a specific revenue pipeline, indy's are not. So expanding video to, say, 5-6 new outlets could answer that hypothesis.
Sorry, I am not sure I follow your train of thought here. Please let me kindly remind you that we are talking purely about iStock income here for both independents and exclusives from 2012 until now. Not sales of video on other outlets.
Ahh, yes, you are correct. Apologies.
-
hmmm. my peak was 2013 so I guess I'm up since 2012. Anyhoo...
-
hmmm. my peak was 2013 so I guess I'm up since 2012. Anyhoo...
Take your BME in 2013 and compare it to your current iStock account balance for May to calculate your percentage of fall.
-
hmmm. my peak was 2013 so I guess I'm up since 2012. Anyhoo...
Take your BME in 2013 and compare it to your current iStock account balance for May to calculate your percentage of fall.
Correct.
-
hmmm. my peak was 2013 so I guess I'm up since 2012. Anyhoo...
Take your BME in 2013 and compare it to your current iStock account balance for May to calculate your percentage of fall.
A percentage of people have vastly differing 'best months', so for example mine was formerly (but not in the past two years) November, by miles; so me comparing past November glories with May wouldn't be an accurate picture.
Perhaps best year total - 2015 total is the best way to go, at least for long-term contributors. It would at least have the benefit of averaging out months.
-
By the way, I should have added the basis for calculating your drop. In my case I took my BME, which was actually March 2012 and compared it to what my checkout payment amount will be later this month for May.
Oh, if I compared my BME to any month this year, my drop would be much more than I voted. I compared 2015's total to 2012's total.
Very sorry for not clarifying that earlier. I should have laid down the parameters at the onset. Anyway, thank you for voting. Your vote will still help.
I did it ShadySue's way too - and actually, I think that makes more sense. I find any individual month on iStock can vary by as much as 100%, so just choosing a particular month doesn't really tell us very much.
Also, by way of comparison, it would be interesting to know how independents have fared overall, not just on iStock - judging from other posts, the whole market for individual contributors has declined over the years, presumably because of the huge increase in numbers of images, so just looking at one agency doesn't give us the full picture.
-
By the way, I should have added the basis for calculating your drop. In my case I took my BME, which was actually March 2012 and compared it to what my checkout payment amount will be later this month for May.
Oh, if I compared my BME to any month this year, my drop would be much more than I voted. I compared 2015's total to 2012's total.
Very sorry for not clarifying that earlier. I should have laid down the parameters at the onset. Anyway, thank you for voting. Your vote will still help.
I did it ShadySue's way too - and actually, I think that makes more sense. I find any individual month on iStock can vary by as much as 100%, so just choosing a particular month doesn't really tell us very much.
Also, by way of comparison, it would be interesting to know how independents have fared overall, not just on iStock - judging from other posts, the whole market for individual contributors has declined over the years, presumably because of the huge increase in numbers of images, so just looking at one agency doesn't give us the full picture.
Yes, you can use Sue's way to compare. I think whatever method we use we will still get a fairly good picture of things since the poll just covers broad ranges and not exact percentages of drops. But it is giving us a good picture of things so far and showing some useful patterns.
I agree, a poll on independents covering their drops on all agencies might be good too. You can start a similar one in the Big 4 message board. I would think the drops though on Shutterstock, Fotolia, and Dreamstime would be most relevant, but it seems Dreamstime has fallen so much recently according to the site polls that is barely even middle tier any longer. Shutterstock would of course be the most relevant and all contributors on there are indy anyway.
-
The reason I said though from your BME in 2012 (or 2013) against last month is because I think we will see the most dramatic falls using that kind of comparison. At one time, although May wasn't my BME, May always used to be a very strong month for me. And this past May was my WM (Worst May and Worst Month) in many years, as it was also for another long term iStock contributor I know personally.
-
My overall earnings increased, but as a percentage of income from other stocks they slightly dropped. So, I would say they were fairly stable. I am indie, obviously.
-
By the way, I should have added the basis for calculating your drop. In my case I took my BME, which was actually March 2012 and compared it to what my checkout payment amount will be later this month for May.
Oh, if I compared my BME to any month this year, my drop would be much more than I voted. I compared 2015's total to 2012's total.
Very sorry for not clarifying that earlier. I should have laid down the parameters at the onset. Anyway, thank you for voting. Your vote will still help.
I did it ShadySue's way too - and actually, I think that makes more sense. I find any individual month on iStock can vary by as much as 100%, so just choosing a particular month doesn't really tell us very much.
Also, by way of comparison, it would be interesting to know how independents have fared overall, not just on iStock - judging from other posts, the whole market for individual contributors has declined over the years, presumably because of the huge increase in numbers of images, so just looking at one agency doesn't give us the full picture.
This is accurate for me. Last month I made around $600 on IS but the prior month was $340.
-
20% people for the item 'My income hasn't dropped at all and I am an indepdendent' ??...
Pretty hard to believe... I seriously wonder where these istock independent are coming from...
Can one voter with one IP vote multiple times ? Could they be trolls ?...
-
You have to understand that the members of this forum are very diverse. I am a good example for someone whose IS earnings have not dropped. I am an artist (painter) who only submitted photos to the agencies to add to my very small income . . . it helps buy paint, not support a photo studio and family. My images are not traditional stock photography, they don't sell very often but on the other hand they are not in competition with traditional Stock Photos and they don't age. I haven't added work to the sites for a couple of years but the ones I have continue to sell.
-
You really should construct a new poll asking only members with a monthly income of, let's say $400, to see how the more serious members are doing . . . that would eliminate small time players like myself and be more enlightening.
-
20% people for the item 'My income hasn't dropped at all and I am an indepdendent' ??...
Pretty hard to believe... I seriously wonder where these iStock independent are coming from...
Can one voter with one IP vote multiple times ? Could they be trolls ?...
People can only vote once per Microstock Group forum user account. Also, I think etienjones' account offers one good possible explanation. There may be a number of independents who never had a big portfolio or made very much on iStock to begin with, even during the boom times. Perhaps they just get a few occasional sales, and just maybe those few sales move around within a handful of different images they have which regularly sell. And when combined, those sales end up netting them about the same amount of money every month. Perhaps, and that is only one of many possible scenarios though.
On the other hand, it could be an indication that more buyers are buying the cheaper (1 credit) indy files than the more expensive (3 credit) exclusive files. This is what I suspected and why I had put up this poll in the first place.
Combine that with an indy who continues to upload and perhaps they don't see any drops. If that is the case, then the take away is drop your crown if you are an exclusive and perhaps you will sell more files on iStock. But if you do that then your royalty rate will likely drop to about half. Plus all your files on Getty (if you have any) will get pulled. So your sales on iStock would need to double, or triple maybe, to maintain what you are earning the same as you are now if you are an exclusive. But perhaps you can make up for the shortfall on iStock and/or make even more after dropping the crown by uploading to 3-4 other new sites as well. That is always the question exclusives are contemplating.
It would be interesting to know though how many, of the indies that voted that they had no drop in income, have actually continued to upload steadily to iStock since 2012?
-
You really should construct a new poll asking only members with a monthly income of, let's say $400, to see how the more serious members are doing . . . that would eliminate small time players like myself and be more enlightening.
Great idea, I would also like to add another parameter or two and set some standards for calculating your drop. But I am not sure if everyone could be troubled to vote again.
-
You really should construct a new poll asking only members with a monthly income of, let's say $400, to see how the more serious members are doing . . . that would eliminate small time players like myself and be more enlightening.
Great idea, I would also like to add another parameter or two and set some standards for calculating your drop. But I am not sure if everyone could be troubled to vote again.
Hmm, even in my best year my best month was > $850, and the lowest month was <$400.
-
Thank you all for voting so far. Please vote if you are presently an iStock contributor. The more votes we have the better we may be able to see a pattern and understand which people have been effected/hurt the most.
Can you post this to getty/iStock forum so we can get mores aswears?
-
another factor that can make things complicated is that different people have different "career" trajectories...some may have started in 2007, some may have started in 2011 etc... and grown their portfolios at different rates with varying "quality" levels. Still a worthwhile poll I think.
-
another factor that can make things complicated is that different people have different "career" trajectories...some may have started in 2007, some may have started in 2011 etc... and grown their portfolios at different rates with varying "quality" levels. Still a worthwhile poll I think.
Good point. If they started in 2012 for example, and have grown their portfolio ever since, then their income might actually be higher now than it was in 2012. That is a tricky one tough to set a parameter for in a poll like this.
-
By the way, I should have added the basis for calculating your drop. In my case I took my BME, which was actually March 2012 and compared it to what my checkout payment amount will be later this month for May.
Oh, if I compared my BME to any month this year, my drop would be much more than I voted. I compared 2015's total to 2012's total.
Very sorry for not clarifying that earlier. I should have laid down the parameters at the onset. Anyway, thank you for voting. Your vote will still help.
I did it ShadySue's way too - and actually, I think that makes more sense. I find any individual month on iStock can vary by as much as 100%, so just choosing a particular month doesn't really tell us very much.
Also, by way of comparison, it would be interesting to know how independents have fared overall, not just on iStock - judging from other posts, the whole market for individual contributors has declined over the years, presumably because of the huge increase in numbers of images, so just looking at one agency doesn't give us the full picture.
This is accurate for me. Last month I made around $600 on IS but the prior month was $340.
When you include your iStock totals, are you adding in subs and PP? I have been. If I was to only go by blue line DLs then I've gone from 4-5k/month to only around $ 300/month on IS. Which would put IS on the lowest tier for me.
-
By the way, I should have added the basis for calculating your drop. In my case I took my BME, which was actually March 2012 and compared it to what my checkout payment amount will be later this month for May.
Oh, if I compared my BME to any month this year, my drop would be much more than I voted. I compared 2015's total to 2012's total.
Very sorry for not clarifying that earlier. I should have laid down the parameters at the onset. Anyway, thank you for voting. Your vote will still help.
I did it ShadySue's way too - and actually, I think that makes more sense. I find any individual month on iStock can vary by as much as 100%, so just choosing a particular month doesn't really tell us very much.
Also, by way of comparison, it would be interesting to know how independents have fared overall, not just on iStock - judging from other posts, the whole market for individual contributors has declined over the years, presumably because of the huge increase in numbers of images, so just looking at one agency doesn't give us the full picture.
This is accurate for me. Last month I made around $600 on IS but the prior month was $340.
When you include your iStock totals, are you adding in subs and PP? I have been. If I was to only go by blue line DLs then I've gone from 4-5k/month to only around $ 300/month on IS. Which would put IS on the lowest tier for me.
If just the blue, I fluctuate today between $150 & $200. 2-3 years ago I was making about $400 a month on blue before TS was introduced. Then income slowly went down, then started to climb up a little in the last year with subs and Getty. Today the "green and gray bars" usually add up to roughly $200 more each month. I've had a few months of late where I've gotten some big bumps in sales.
-
well, no way to change that wrong response that I can see... 2012 was nowhere near the peak, but I am down to 2.7% compared to 2010 and before. Of course deleting most of my images might have something to do with it. I am down about 27% overall since 2012. I think my motivation has dropped a lot more though.
-
By the way, I should have added the basis for calculating your drop. In my case I took my BME, which was actually March 2012 and compared it to what my checkout payment amount will be later this month for May.
Oh, if I compared my BME to any month this year, my drop would be much more than I voted. I compared 2015's total to 2012's total.
Very sorry for not clarifying that earlier. I should have laid down the parameters at the onset. Anyway, thank you for voting. Your vote will still help.
I did it ShadySue's way too - and actually, I think that makes more sense. I find any individual month on iStock can vary by as much as 100%, so just choosing a particular month doesn't really tell us very much.
Also, by way of comparison, it would be interesting to know how independents have fared overall, not just on iStock - judging from other posts, the whole market for individual contributors has declined over the years, presumably because of the huge increase in numbers of images, so just looking at one agency doesn't give us the full picture.
This is accurate for me. Last month I made around $600 on IS but the prior month was $340.
When you include your iStock totals, are you adding in subs and PP? I have been. If I was to only go by blue line DLs then I've gone from 4-5k/month to only around $ 300/month on IS. Which would put IS on the lowest tier for me.
Yes, I included total income from all iStock sources. But I'm not a major player, so a couple of ELs or good GI sales can make a lot of difference to a month.
-
20% people for the item 'My income hasn't dropped at all and I am an indepdendent' ??...
Pretty hard to believe... I seriously wonder where these istock independent are coming from...
Can one voter with one IP vote multiple times ? Could they be trolls ?...
People are weirdly desperate to vote in every poll. I know from PMs when I have started polls. Also people who misread or interpreted the question in whatever way they like to get a vote in. There will be votes from people who started recently and have seen income growth as everyone does from a standing start.
-
Not everyone's experience is the same. A lot of those whose income has plummeted have stopped uploading while others are uploading new and more relevant content. Just because you don't like the answer don't shoot the messenger
-
Not everyone's experience is the same. A lot of those whose income has plummeted have stopped uploading while others are uploading new and more relevant content. Just because you don't like the answer don't shoot the messenger
It's true, but I've several times read such people say they are struggling to earn back the cost of their shoots.
Also, I'm noticing a significant number of high Diamonds, BDs and even some (former?) Admins and inspectors who have stopped uploading, many within a few months of subs starting.
-
Any independents here that already had a substantial portfolio (say 2000+ images) on IS in 2012 and have seen an increase in income please chime in with some stats.
I haven't heard from anyone else in the business who has, there could be some but I suspect they would have had to increase their portfolio size by 5X at least to keep pace with the level of mismanagement at the site.
I am speaking as someone who makes six figures per year on micro has increased income overall and across every other big site since IS started their decline.
-
Not everyone's experience is the same. A lot of those whose income has plummeted have stopped uploading while others are uploading new and more relevant content. Just because you don't like the answer don't shoot the messenger
It's true, but I've several times read such people say they are struggling to earn back the cost of their shoots.
Very true but whether or not they are profitable/successful selling the volumes that some people achieved is a different question. It may be that the pie is being sliced much more evenly with the minnows getting a few more crumbs.......
-
Not everyone's experience is the same. A lot of those whose income has plummeted have stopped uploading while others are uploading new and more relevant content. Just because you don't like the answer don't shoot the messenger
I agree, and didn't meant to disqualify a priori these results, but sincerely they definitely hurt my common sense... I really wonder how can one still have the same revenue at least since the new current pricing system at IS?... Another curious fact is the ratio between indies and exclusive in the 'not dropped earnings' compared to the '50% dropped earnings'. But i know we don't have a significant amount of voters to draw any solid conclusion.
I used to earn on a regular basis up to more than 1000$/mth. Now I'm happy if I make 400$. I never stopped uploading images and, while standard sales were decreasing in volume and price, pp and subs were consistently growing with the volume. But now with same amount of images added each month, pp and subs decrease also. So...
Yet this poll is very useful whatever the results are. Especially also for those who would like to try the micro experience. It tends to prove they must think rather than twice before upoading to IS.
-
Not everyone's experience is the same. A lot of those whose income has plummeted have stopped uploading while others are uploading new and more relevant content. Just because you don't like the answer don't shoot the messenger
I agree, and didn't meant to disqualify a priori these results, but sincerely they definitely hurt my common sense... I really wonder how can one still have the same revenue at least since the new current pricing system at IS?... Another curious fact is the ratio between indies and exclusive in the 'not dropped earnings' compared to the '50% dropped earnings'. But i know we don't have a significant amount of voters to draw any solid conclusion.
I used to earn on a regular basis up to more than 1000$/mth. Now I'm happy if I make 400$. I never stopped uploading images and, while standard sales were decreasing in volume and price, pp and subs were consistently growing with the volume. But now with same amount of images added each month, pp and subs decrease also. So...
Yet this poll is very useful whatever the results are. Especially also for those who would like to try the micro experience. It tends to prove they must think rather than twice before upoading to IS.
in 2012 I Stock were VERY picky about what they accepted now anything goes for the less gifted like myself this has meant I have rapidly expanded my portfolio...thats one reason.
-
Now that we have had 93 votes on this poll, we have 20 independents saying their income hasn't gone down at all since 2012 and yet only 3 exclusives who say there income hasn't gone down over the same period of time.
For me, this is one of the most important aspects of the poll results so far. Yes, as many people have pointed out, there might be some discrepancies, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies on how the various contributors who voted have calculated their percentage of drops. But I think the issue of whether or not you have had a drop since 2012 in income or not is a pretty cut and dry matter.
Another thing I noticed over the last 18 months is how the best match on iStock hasn't really changed much at all. And what the best match mainly has been driving for the last 1.5 years is the newer content uploaded by exclusives and independents, plus some of the older stuff put up by exclusives which hasn't sold much in the past.
Seemingly, exclusives are no longer investing as much as they did in the past to create their new content, knowing that iStock has turned mainly into a low-cost subscription priced site. This means that the older exclusive content is probably much better quality than the newer exclusive content, if in fact many of the exclusives have even continued to upload at all. The current best match algorithm is also not showing the older and best selling exclusive content at the top of the search results, which results in minimal sales to exclusives of their high quality best sellers from the past that they spent more money to create.
So what does this all really mean for contributors?
In my opinion it means that iStock is discouraging buyers from easily finding the more expensive, high quality exclusive content and instead putting a mix of new, lower quality and lower cost indy content, with some older, poorer selling exclusive content which isn't going to interest buyers much anyway. And when the buyers see mainly a mix of lower quality pictures from the indies and exclusives together, they probably buy more of the indy stuff because quality of the two groups will be about equal and yet the indy stuff sells for only 1/3 the price.
I am not saying iStock is necessarily doing this consciously to make more money because of the fact they have a lower payout on the indy stuff. But maybe they are truly trying to promote the older content that hasn't sold much yet and to give the new stuff a bigger chance too.
But if buyers are mainly buying the cheaper priced indy pictures, rather than the higher cost exclusive pictures, it means the indys might not be seeing a drop income and the exclusives could be seeing huge drops of over 50% in income as the poll also has also shown us with 24 exclusives saying their income has fallen by 50% or more and only 14 independents saying their income has dropped as much too.
-
Yes more muddled thinking from Istock they market on the basis they have stuff you can't find anywhere else then push the stuff you can. It would be hard to run an outfit worse ;-).
-
I did it based on average monthly earnings - makes it easier to compare a full year with a part year. It was still over 50%. Ouch.
-
Now that we have had 93 votes on this poll, we have 20 independents saying their income hasn't gone down at all since 2012 and yet only 3 exclusives who say there income hasn't gone down over the same period of time.
For me, this is one of the most important aspects of the poll results so far. Yes, as many people have pointed out, there might be some discrepancies, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies on how the various contributors who voted have calculated their percentage of drops. But I think the issue of whether or not you have had a drop since 2012 in income or not is a pretty cut and dry matter.
....
Not really. There's a minimum sales threshold to reach to become exclusive on IS. The people who's income has increased are the ones who had very small portfolios in 2012, in other words much more likely to be independents.
-
Now that we have had 93 votes on this poll, we have 20 independents saying their income hasn't gone down at all since 2012 and yet only 3 exclusives who say there income hasn't gone down over the same period of time.
For me, this is one of the most important aspects of the poll results so far. Yes, as many people have pointed out, there might be some discrepancies, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies on how the various contributors who voted have calculated their percentage of drops. But I think the issue of whether or not you have had a drop since 2012 in income or not is a pretty cut and dry matter.
....
Not really. There's a minimum sales threshold to reach to become exclusive on IS. The people who's income has increased are the ones who had very small portfolios in 2012, in other words much more likely to be independents.
The poll results do not show that anyone who voted has had an increase in income. It also doesn't give any indication of the size of their portfolios or that their portfolios have increased in size since 2012 for the people who voted. What data is your conclusions based upon?
-
Now that we have had 93 votes on this poll, we have 20 independents saying their income hasn't gone down at all since 2012 and yet only 3 exclusives who say there income hasn't gone down over the same period of time.
For me, this is one of the most important aspects of the poll results so far. Yes, as many people have pointed out, there might be some discrepancies, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies on how the various contributors who voted have calculated their percentage of drops. But I think the issue of whether or not you have had a drop since 2012 in income or not is a pretty cut and dry matter.
....
Not really. There's a minimum sales threshold to reach to become exclusive on IS. The people who's income has increased are the ones who had very small portfolios in 2012, in other words much more likely to be independents.
Yes, statistically these polls have all sorts of caveats - they're from a self-selected group, the answers are unverifiable, they aren't corrected for increases in the numbers of contributors and images, size of portfolio, level of expertise or activity and no doubt lots of other things.
They're fun, but I wouldn't go drawing any far reaching conclusions based on them... if you are thinking of dropping exclusivity (or indeed going exclusive), base it on your own figures and aims, not what anyone else might think is best!
-
Now that we have had 93 votes on this poll, we have 20 independents saying their income hasn't gone down at all since 2012 and yet only 3 exclusives who say there income hasn't gone down over the same period of time.
For me, this is one of the most important aspects of the poll results so far. Yes, as many people have pointed out, there might be some discrepancies, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies on how the various contributors who voted have calculated their percentage of drops. But I think the issue of whether or not you have had a drop since 2012 in income or not is a pretty cut and dry matter.
....
Not really. There's a minimum sales threshold to reach to become exclusive on IS. The people who's income has increased are the ones who had very small portfolios in 2012, in other words much more likely to be independents.
Yes, statistically these polls have all sorts of caveats - they're from a self-selected group, the answers are unverifiable, they aren't corrected for increases in the numbers of contributors and images, size of portfolio, level of expertise or activity and no doubt lots of other things.
They're fun, but I wouldn't go drawing any far reaching conclusions based on them... if you are thinking of dropping exclusivity (or indeed going exclusive), base it on your own figures and aims, not what anyone else might think is best!
All agreed. But when I put up this poll I had some theories as to why my own income on iStock has dropped so significantly. Yes, the poll results may be flawed for all the reasons you mentioned, but so far the poll results have matched my theories. Pure coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
-
Now that we have had 93 votes on this poll, we have 20 independents saying their income hasn't gone down at all since 2012 and yet only 3 exclusives who say there income hasn't gone down over the same period of time.
For me, this is one of the most important aspects of the poll results so far. Yes, as many people have pointed out, there might be some discrepancies, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies on how the various contributors who voted have calculated their percentage of drops. But I think the issue of whether or not you have had a drop since 2012 in income or not is a pretty cut and dry matter.
....
Not really. There's a minimum sales threshold to reach to become exclusive on IS. The people who's income has increased are the ones who had very small portfolios in 2012, in other words much more likely to be independents.
Yes, statistically these polls have all sorts of caveats - they're from a self-selected group, the answers are unverifiable, they aren't corrected for increases in the numbers of contributors and images, size of portfolio, level of expertise or activity and no doubt lots of other things.
They're fun, but I wouldn't go drawing any far reaching conclusions based on them... if you are thinking of dropping exclusivity (or indeed going exclusive), base it on your own figures and aims, not what anyone else might think is best!
All agreed. But when I put up this poll I had some theories as to why my own income on iStock has dropped so significantly. Yes, the poll results may be flawed for all the reasons you mentioned, but so far the poll results have matched my theories. Pure coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
The poll, assuming it's at all accurate (and it doesn't seem outrageously out of order or anything) doesn't confirm any theories as to the causes of income drops - it just confirms that, for many people, there has been an income drop. I think most contributors (based on posts in this forum and others) already knew that!
It's just a bit of fun.
-
Now that we have had 93 votes on this poll, we have 20 independents saying their income hasn't gone down at all since 2012 and yet only 3 exclusives who say there income hasn't gone down over the same period of time.
For me, this is one of the most important aspects of the poll results so far. Yes, as many people have pointed out, there might be some discrepancies, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies on how the various contributors who voted have calculated their percentage of drops. But I think the issue of whether or not you have had a drop since 2012 in income or not is a pretty cut and dry matter.
....
Not really. There's a minimum sales threshold to reach to become exclusive on IS. The people who's income has increased are the ones who had very small portfolios in 2012, in other words much more likely to be independents.
Yes, statistically these polls have all sorts of caveats - they're from a self-selected group, the answers are unverifiable, they aren't corrected for increases in the numbers of contributors and images, size of portfolio, level of expertise or activity and no doubt lots of other things.
They're fun, but I wouldn't go drawing any far reaching conclusions based on them... if you are thinking of dropping exclusivity (or indeed going exclusive), base it on your own figures and aims, not what anyone else might think is best!
All agreed. But when I put up this poll I had some theories as to why my own income on iStock has dropped so significantly. Yes, the poll results may be flawed for all the reasons you mentioned, but so far the poll results have matched my theories. Pure coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
The poll, assuming it's at all accurate (and it doesn't seem outrageously out of order or anything) doesn't confirm any theories as to the causes of income drops - it just confirms that, for many people, there has been an income drop. I think most contributors (based on posts in this forum and others) already knew that!
It's just a bit of fun.
Agreed, it doesn't confirm theories as to cause of income drops. But it tells more than that there has been a drop in income. It also shows the following:
1 - Many indies have not seen a loss of income since 2012 versus almost all exclusives who have seen some loss of income.
2 - The majority of people who have had a loss on income have seen a loss of 50% or greater.
If you find that to be just a bit of fun, then no problem. But I find that to be useful data that we did not have before.
-
Mine dropped 100% :P
-
Mine dropped 100% :P
I'll add an option for 100% drop on the next poll ;)
-
...
Another thing I noticed over the last 18 months is how the best match on iStock hasn't really changed much at all. And what the best match mainly has been driving for the last 1.5 years is the newer content uploaded by exclusives and independents, plus some of the older stuff put up by exclusives which hasn't sold much in the past
...
The current best match algorithm is also not showing the older and best selling exclusive content at the top of the search results, which results in minimal sales to exclusives of their high quality best sellers from the past that they spent more money to create.
So what does this all really mean for contributors?
In my opinion it means that iStock is discouraging buyers from easily finding the more expensive, high quality exclusive content and instead putting a mix of new, lower quality and lower cost indy content, with some older, poorer selling exclusive content which isn't going to interest buyers much anyway.
I didn't vote because my portfolio is so small as to be microscopic. I stopped uploading in 2010 after whatever major debacle iStock caused that year and deactivated a significant number of images after the Google freebie event. I'm not contributing to microstock any more -- just letting the game play out to the end, which seems nigh.
Nevertheless, I had a handful of images that continued to sell quite well (as credit sales too) until the last year, when everything went off a cliff. Your comment above would perfectly explain why this happened. Unless best match changes to show older best-sellers again, I'm pretty much completely dead instead of just almost dead.
FWIW, I estimate earnings this year will be 9% of what I earned in 2012 and 3% of what I earned in 2010, the last year I uploaded -- losses of 91% and 97% respectively.
-
Agreed, it doesn't confirm theories as to cause of income drops. But it tells more than that there has been a drop in income. It also shows the following:
1 - Many indies have not seen a loss of income since 2012 versus almost all exclusives who have seen some loss of income.
2 - The majority of people who have had a loss on income have seen a loss of 50% or greater.
If you find that to be just a bit of fun, then no problem. But I find that to be useful data that we did not have before.
+1.
All in one, as we can read with votes already posted :
1. 75% of istock contributors have a drop in their sales (independent and exclusive)
2. Only 3% of exclusive has'nt dropped at all.
Just for curiosity, maybe you could have put also an item with 'My income has increased (by about x%) and I am an independent'... ;)
-
It is very obvious that Istock is not promoting exclusive files. Why pay 2.5$ /0.75$ if you can do with much less (same with credits), specially if there are similar files on both champs so the customer doesn't need to look elsewhere. Let me give you another hint on why quality doesn't matter at all for them. In my last uploads I had most images selected as regular exclusive files, some as E+ and some as Main.........guess which of them appear first when I look for my portfolio in Best Match........the bests with a big Plus sign on it.....wrong! Those selected as Main get to the front page before any sale that bumps them up and they also stay on the privileged position for longer......
-
Agreed, it doesn't confirm theories as to cause of income drops. But it tells more than that there has been a drop in income. It also shows the following:
1 - Many indies have not seen a loss of income since 2012 versus almost all exclusives who have seen some loss of income.
2 - The majority of people who have had a loss on income have seen a loss of 50% or greater.
If you find that to be just a bit of fun, then no problem. But I find that to be useful data that we did not have before.
+1.
All in one, as we can read with votes already posted :
1. 75% of istock contributors have a drop in their sales (independent and exclusive)
2. Only 3% of exclusive has'nt dropped at all.
Just for curiosity, maybe you could have put also an item with 'My income has increased (by about x%) and I am an independent'... ;)
Great idea. It is a bit late in the game, but I just added the following 2 options anyway:
1 - My income has increased by 10% or more and I am an indepdendent
2 - My income has increased by 10% or more and I am exclusive with iStock
Unfortunately I could not put them at the top of the poll where they belong though as there is no option to change the order of things without disrupting the numbers.
I added them actually because perhaps there are people who are following this thread and haven't voted yet because they didn't fit into any of the existing categories. So now this gives them a chance to vote too.
-
The poll results do not show that anyone who voted has had an increase in income. It also doesn't give any indication of the size of their portfolios or that their portfolios have increased in size since 2012 for the people who voted. What data is your conclusions based upon?
Sorry, I meant "hasn't dropped", they could mean "stayed exactly the same to the cent", but I assumed increased.
My conclusion is based upon there not being any exclusives in 2012 with portfolios below a certain threshold, the threshold you need/ needed to pass to become exclusive and the ease of growing that portfolio in percentage terms compared to larger portfolios. I am basing that on how percentages work.
-
The poll results do not show that anyone who voted has had an increase in income. It also doesn't give any indication of the size of their portfolios or that their portfolios have increased in size since 2012 for the people who voted. What data is your conclusions based upon?
Sorry, I meant "hasn't dropped", they could mean "stayed exactly the same to the cent", but I assumed increased.
My conclusion is based upon there not being any exclusives in 2012 with portfolios below a certain threshold, the threshold you need/ needed to pass to become exclusive and the ease of growing that portfolio in percentage terms compared to larger portfolios. I am basing that on how percentages work.
With the 2 new voting options I added, perhaps we will get some feedback from people who have seen at least a 10% increase in income since 2012.
-
I believe i was exclusive for most of 2012 and then went indie so my drop was huge. There didn't seem to be an option for that on the poll but i put over 80% drop...
-
With the 2 new voting options I added, perhaps we will get some feedback from people who have seen at least a 10% increase in income since 2012.
Well done! Now let's see...
-
I believe i was exclusive for most of 2012 and then went indie so my drop was huge. There didn't seem to be an option for that on the poll but i put over 80% drop...
Understood and thank you for voting.
Since you voted already I don't think you can change your vote, but perhaps the best thing to have done would have been to take your first month's income as an indie (after dropping your crown) and then calculated your percentage of income drop based upon your last month's income total.
Just for the record, how much of a percentage drop would that be?
-
It is very obvious that Istock is not promoting exclusive files. Why pay 2.5$ /0.75$ if you can do with much less (same with credits), specially if there are similar files on both champs so the customer doesn't need to look elsewhere. Let me give you another hint on why quality doesn't matter at all for them. In my last uploads I had most images selected as regular exclusive files, some as E+ and some as Main.........guess which of them appear first when I look for my portfolio in Best Match........the bests with a big Plus sign on it.....wrong! Those selected as Main get to the front page before any sale that bumps them up and they also stay on the privileged position for longer......
Although at one time, I'm sure it was said that some exclusive files would be put into Main on acceptance, the last time I read about it happening, it was apparently a mistake and the person was told it shouldn't have happened.
I see no evidence that sales are boosting files. Indeed, the curse of the download might still be in play (on a tiny sample).
Later: tried some other searches and it's 'inconsistent'.
-
Hope those who were not in iStock before 2012 are not voting. I noticed 26 have reported their income has not dropped at all. That's hard to believe.
-
When you include your iStock totals, are you adding in subs and PP? I have been. If I was to only go by blue line DLs then I've gone from 4-5k/month to only around $ 300/month on IS. Which would put IS on the lowest tier for me.
If just the blue, I fluctuate today between $150 & $200. 2-3 years ago I was making about $400 a month on blue before TS was introduced. Then income slowly went down, then started to climb up a little in the last year with subs and Getty. Today the "green and gray bars" usually add up to roughly $200 more each month. I've had a few months of late where I've gotten some big bumps in sales.
Thanks for the explanation. I wonder if my extreme drops are from not branching into video. Seems like the still photogs like yourself that also added video have not fallen so bad.
-
Now that we have had 93 votes on this poll, we have 20 independents saying their income hasn't gone down at all since 2012 and yet only 3 exclusives who say there income hasn't gone down over the same period of time.
For me, this is one of the most important aspects of the poll results so far. Yes, as many people have pointed out, there might be some discrepancies, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies on how the various contributors who voted have calculated their percentage of drops. But I think the issue of whether or not you have had a drop since 2012 in income or not is a pretty cut and dry matter.
Another thing I noticed over the last 18 months is how the best match on iStock hasn't really changed much at all. And what the best match mainly has been driving for the last 1.5 years is the newer content uploaded by exclusives and independents, plus some of the older stuff put up by exclusives which hasn't sold much in the past.
Seemingly, exclusives are no longer investing as much as they did in the past to create their new content, knowing that iStock has turned mainly into a low-cost subscription priced site. This means that the older exclusive content is probably much better quality than the newer exclusive content, if in fact many of the exclusives have even continued to upload at all. The current best match algorithm is also not showing the older and best selling exclusive content at the top of the search results, which results in minimal sales to exclusives of their high quality best sellers from the past that they spent more money to create.
So what does this all really mean for contributors?
In my opinion it means that iStock is discouraging buyers from easily finding the more expensive, high quality exclusive content and instead putting a mix of new, lower quality and lower cost indy content, with some older, poorer selling exclusive content which isn't going to interest buyers much anyway. And when the buyers see mainly a mix of lower quality pictures from the indies and exclusives together, they probably buy more of the indy stuff because quality of the two groups will be about equal and yet the indy stuff sells for only 1/3 the price.
I am not saying iStock is necessarily doing this consciously to make more money because of the fact they have a lower payout on the indy stuff. But maybe they are truly trying to promote the older content that hasn't sold much yet and to give the new stuff a bigger chance too.
But if buyers are mainly buying the cheaper priced indy pictures, rather than the higher cost exclusive pictures, it means the indys might not be seeing a drop income and the exclusives could be seeing huge drops of over 50% in income as the poll also has also shown us with 24 exclusives saying their income has fallen by 50% or more and only 14 independents saying their income has dropped as much too.
I don't know how you're coming to these conclusions. As I read the poll, the indies that lost 50% or more are the largest group.
-
Now that we have had 93 votes on this poll, we have 20 independents saying their income hasn't gone down at all since 2012 and yet only 3 exclusives who say there income hasn't gone down over the same period of time.
For me, this is one of the most important aspects of the poll results so far. Yes, as many people have pointed out, there might be some discrepancies, inconsistencies, and inaccuracies on how the various contributors who voted have calculated their percentage of drops. But I think the issue of whether or not you have had a drop since 2012 in income or not is a pretty cut and dry matter.
Another thing I noticed over the last 18 months is how the best match on iStock hasn't really changed much at all. And what the best match mainly has been driving for the last 1.5 years is the newer content uploaded by exclusives and independents, plus some of the older stuff put up by exclusives which hasn't sold much in the past.
Seemingly, exclusives are no longer investing as much as they did in the past to create their new content, knowing that iStock has turned mainly into a low-cost subscription priced site. This means that the older exclusive content is probably much better quality than the newer exclusive content, if in fact many of the exclusives have even continued to upload at all. The current best match algorithm is also not showing the older and best selling exclusive content at the top of the search results, which results in minimal sales to exclusives of their high quality best sellers from the past that they spent more money to create.
So what does this all really mean for contributors?
In my opinion it means that iStock is discouraging buyers from easily finding the more expensive, high quality exclusive content and instead putting a mix of new, lower quality and lower cost indy content, with some older, poorer selling exclusive content which isn't going to interest buyers much anyway. And when the buyers see mainly a mix of lower quality pictures from the indies and exclusives together, they probably buy more of the indy stuff because quality of the two groups will be about equal and yet the indy stuff sells for only 1/3 the price.
I am not saying iStock is necessarily doing this consciously to make more money because of the fact they have a lower payout on the indy stuff. But maybe they are truly trying to promote the older content that hasn't sold much yet and to give the new stuff a bigger chance too.
But if buyers are mainly buying the cheaper priced indy pictures, rather than the higher cost exclusive pictures, it means the indys might not be seeing a drop income and the exclusives could be seeing huge drops of over 50% in income as the poll also has also shown us with 24 exclusives saying their income has fallen by 50% or more and only 14 independents saying their income has dropped as much too.
I don't know how you're coming to these conclusions. As I read the poll, the indies that lost 50% or more are the largest group.
Yes, largest group, but similar in size to the number of indies who didn't lose anything. You now have 24 independents saying their income hasn't gone down at all since 2012. Second largest group. Yet only 3 exclusives say that their income hasn't gone down over the same period of time. Those 3 exclusives are one of the smallest groups and is only 10% of the number of indies who haven't lost any income. Simple math.
-
According to Moody's Financial Reports (generally published in September) iStock had gross revenue of about $350 million back in 2011/2. It started to fall, and has fallen every year since then. The last report (which included comments from Getty) said gross revenue had dropped to $250 million, and was still falling but at a lower rate.
So gross revenue (and hence sales) has fallen by about a third.
Over the same period there have been shifts in the best match to gradually demote exclusive files and give more sales to non-exclusives (presumably in a attempt to preserve profits by selling more of the higher margin non-exclusive files and less of the exclusive files).
So taking the best match shifts into account, it's logical to assume that exclusive incomes should have dropped by 30% or more over that period (all other things being equal), and it's quite reasonable to expect to see large numbers of exclusives showing declines in the 50% area.
And, given the best match shifts giving favor to non-exclusive files, it's also quite reasonable to expect to see large numbers of non-exclusives reporting little or no change to incomes over the same period.
Of course to give some credit to Getty, they mirrored most of the exclusive files over on the Getty main site during this period, so I assume they were trying to compensate for lost income by generating additional income from Getty main site sales.
-
According to Moody's Financial Reports (generally published in September) iStock had gross revenue of about $350 million back in 2011/2. It started to fall, and has fallen every year since then. The last report (which included comments from Getty) said gross revenue had dropped to $250 million, and was still falling but at a lower rate.
So gross revenue (and hence sales) has fallen by about a third.
Over the same period there have been shifts in the best match to gradually demote exclusive files and give more sales to non-exclusives (presumably in a attempt to preserve profits by selling more of the higher margin non-exclusive files and less of the exclusive files).
So taking the best match shifts into account, it's logical to assume that exclusive incomes should have dropped by 30% or more over that period (all other things being equal), and it's quite reasonable to expect to see large numbers of exclusives showing declines in the 50% area.
And, given the best match shifts giving favor to non-exclusive files, it's also quite reasonable to expect to see large numbers of non-exclusives reporting little or no change to incomes over the same period.
Of course to give some credit to Getty, they mirrored most of the exclusive files over on the Getty main site during this period, so I assume they were trying to compensate for lost income by generating additional income from Getty main site sales.
Good analysis. Confirms the results of this poll as well as the theories added by the OP.
-
Of course to give some credit to Getty, they mirrored most of the exclusive files over on the Getty main site during this period,
By no means 'most' exclusive files have been mirrored*. Editorial was mirrored (but as 'unreleased', not as 'Editorial') then very quickly removed on an extremely spurious excuse (and may, or may not, be restored soon-ish).
For a while, exclusives could nominate files for promotion to S+/mirroring, but for example in my case, as a long-standing 'big name' in my main field (who previously was with one of the specialist agencies and marketed on his own, according to credits) suddenly put his back catalogue of around 15k files onto the micros, there wasn't much point to make my own files even more expensive on iStock than his were as an indie. Some people took the opportunity to promote lots of images, others didn't. It is true that we were encouraged to do so for a while, on the grounds that buyers wanted to pay more (!?), then suddenly the same buyers seemed only to want subs.
I think it was when subs were introduced (but might have been at a different date), exclusives stopped having the ability to promote directly, but can nominate files for consideration S+/Getty mirroring, since when it's become more and more difficult to get files 'promoted' - and in some cases, it seems surprisingly 'random'. Even the big budget people shooters don't get files promoted as much as they'd expect/hope for (I know my place!)
so I assume they were trying to compensate for lost income by generating additional income from Getty main site sales.
I guess they are getting additional income, as they get 80% of Getty sales, but also some Getty sales are ridiculously small, even compared to subs.
I've previously been lucky on some occasions to get big value sales (for example, one person actually paid $250 for an isolated gift bow, which I bought '3 for £1' in a pound shop, of which I got $50), but these are getting fewer, for a lot of people who report. I've also had net sales as low as 22c and 23c via Getty, and again these seem to be more common for the people reporting.
Interestingly (to me, at least!), although I have a tiny presence on Getty, quite often the files which sell - at whatever price point - have no sales on iS.
Also remember that all files, in cluding indie, are available to a 'selection' of Getty buyers via the GettyPlus scheme. Again, previously I had a few good sales from that scheme, but now they are mostly low-value, and that has also been echoed by others.
* exclusive video files are all mirrored, providing the connector is working.
-
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.
True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.
So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.
The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?
Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.
I am an example of this. Exclusive on both stills and video. Last month was my BME (previous one was March 2016) on total iStock income. I am submitting more video since last 2 years. The GI income from mirrored stills/videos is balancing and even improving a lot recently.
We're talking about 4-digit numbers by the way. Just to give you an impression.
-
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.
True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.
So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.
The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?
Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.
I am an example of this. Exclusive on both stills and video. Last month was my BME (previous one was March 2016) on total iStock income. I am submitting more video since last 2 years. The GI income from mirrored stills/videos is balancing and even improving a lot recently.
We're talking about 4-digit numbers by the way. Just to give you an impression.
Thank you for the data. Two questions please:
1 - What year did you first start uploading to iStock as an exclusive? Was it around 2010?
2 - Have you continued to upload regularly since you became exclusive with iStock?
-
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.
True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.
So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.
The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?
Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.
I am an example of this. Exclusive on both stills and video. Last month was my BME (previous one was March 2016) on total iStock income. I am submitting more video since last 2 years. The GI income from mirrored stills/videos is balancing and even improving a lot recently.
We're talking about 4-digit numbers by the way. Just to give you an impression.
Thank you for the data. Two questions please:
1 - What year did you first start uploading to iStock as an exclusive? Was it around 2010?
2 - Have you continued to upload regularly since you became exclusive with iStock?
1- Yes, I started in January 2010.
2- Yes, I am not the biggest uploader but I can say that it's been regular without any long breaks.
-
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.
True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.
So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.
The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?
Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.
I am an example of this. Exclusive on both stills and video. Last month was my BME (previous one was March 2016) on total iStock income. I am submitting more video since last 2 years. The GI income from mirrored stills/videos is balancing and even improving a lot recently.
We're talking about 4-digit numbers by the way. Just to give you an impression.
Thank you for the data. Two questions please:
1 - What year did you first start uploading to iStock as an exclusive? Was it around 2010?
2 - Have you continued to upload regularly since you became exclusive with iStock?
1- Yes, I started in January 2010.
2- Yes, I am not the biggest uploader but I can say that it's been regular without any long breaks.
Great, thank you. So it is really the GI sales from both stills and video you feel which has increased your income and provided the BME recently?
Also, have you seen an overall drop in income though on stills on the iStock site since 2012?
-
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.
True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.
So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.
The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?
Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.
I am an example of this. Exclusive on both stills and video. Last month was my BME (previous one was March 2016) on total iStock income. I am submitting more video since last 2 years. The GI income from mirrored stills/videos is balancing and even improving a lot recently.
We're talking about 4-digit numbers by the way. Just to give you an impression.
Thank you for the data. Two questions please:
1 - What year did you first start uploading to iStock as an exclusive? Was it around 2010?
2 - Have you continued to upload regularly since you became exclusive with iStock?
1- Yes, I started in January 2010.
2- Yes, I am not the biggest uploader but I can say that it's been regular without any long breaks.
Great, thank you. So it is really the GI sales from both stills and video you feel which has increased your income and provided the BME recently?
Also, have you seen an overall drop in income though on stills on the iStock site since 2012?
Yes, GI income (stills + video) and regular video sales is helping at the moment. There is definitely a drop on stills side since 2012. Both number of downloads and $ per download.
-
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.
True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.
So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.
The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?
Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.
I am an example of this. Exclusive on both stills and video. Last month was my BME (previous one was March 2016) on total iStock income. I am submitting more video since last 2 years. The GI income from mirrored stills/videos is balancing and even improving a lot recently.
We're talking about 4-digit numbers by the way. Just to give you an impression.
Thank you for the data. Two questions please:
1 - What year did you first start uploading to iStock as an exclusive? Was it around 2010?
2 - Have you continued to upload regularly since you became exclusive with iStock?
1- Yes, I started in January 2010.
2- Yes, I am not the biggest uploader but I can say that it's been regular without any long breaks.
Great, thank you. So it is really the GI sales from both stills and video you feel which has increased your income and provided the BME recently?
Also, have you seen an overall drop in income though on stills on the iStock site since 2012?
Yes, GI income (stills + video) and regular video sales is helping at the moment. There is definitely a drop on stills side since 2012. Both number of downloads and $ per download.
Great, glad to hear you are still doing so well. And thank you for kindly sharing all that information with us.
-
why you dont put some other choices like 80% ? my istock revenue 80% dropped On iStock Since The Peak In 2012 due to vary bad and very cheap subsciption plans... yes, that is so true and bite fact... and I am still exclusive too... I am amazed that why Istock contributors doesnt show enough counter reaction to ... or boycott, strike or something like... are everybody happy to lose?
-
This much - actual rpi in blue, flattened trend in 6 month blocks in red
-
my monthly revenue constatnly decreasing for past 3 years although increasing portfolio 6 times more ... in july, I've passed one level more, my july revenue down 40% compared to last month, it seems really never and never end recession trend on istock, really.... istock heads doesnt make any improvement for this, what about you guys? Why we aren't doing anything? why we can't react... ???
-
my monthly revenue constatnly decreasing for past 3 years although increasing portfolio 6 times more ...
Are you iStock exclusive or independent?
-
my monthly revenue constatnly decreasing for past 3 years although increasing portfolio 6 times more ...
Are you iStock exclusive or independent?
exclusive.
-
normal image prices are too expensive, 3 credits $33, who pay with this so expensive price for one image? on the other hand, our images selling by "almost no price" under the name that subscription plan... quality of images has been so down since 3 years, everywhere fully covered garbage, they will accept when I take my ... photo also... I totally see it as a big disgrace...
-
My iStock income is now about 1/10th of what it was a few years ago. And falling still.
They pushed too far with pricing. $10 per image has always been the sweet spot for single on-demand images. iStock seems to have wanted to venture into the midstock model and get up to $50 per image. Obviously $33 is even too high a price, the market just won't bear it.
People here (myself included) have said for years that iStock could rebound if they just reverted back to sensible pricing and a simple purchasing system. But their stubbornness will never let them do that, so the decline will continue.
-
Close to Black-Diamond here and independent since 2005 down 50% if not a bit more. I strongly believe Getty is doing its very best to keep IS down. They bought it and mismanaged it.
-
they are doing everything to destroy the istock ... they make it very well. >:(
-
This much - actual rpi in blue, flattened trend in 6 month blocks in red
Did something big/bad happen in November/December 2012? I was on a couple of sites back then, but not iStock.
-
This much - actual rpi in blue, flattened trend in 6 month blocks in red
Did something big/bad happen in November/December 2012? I was on a couple of sites back then, but not iStock.
The bad thing happened in 2006 when Getty bought istock. It took them a couple of years to start ruining istock but since 2008, it has been one bad thing after another. No idea what happened in 2012, I had gone past caring by then.
-
In Oct 2012, the best match changed so that it was difficult for new files to get traction. For some reason, that has more or less continued through various best match iterations until now with credit sales, not so for subs, apparently.
-
they must be lowering credit sale prices to make improvement for sales, one image sell for $33 for many years, this is a ridiculous logic... at least prices must be 1-2-3 credits by size, but not, because they coluldnt destroy istock completely.... >:(
what about collect our signatures and give our demands to istock heads? Let's make a topic about it?
-
they must be lowering credit sale prices to make improvement for sales, one image sell for $33 for many years, this is a ridiculous logic... at least prices must be 1-2-3 credits by size, but not, because they coluldnt destroy istock completely.... >:(
what about collect our signatures and give our demands to istock heads? Let's make a topic about it?
First of all, you'd need to get everyone to agree on the same demands.
Secondly, they'd just say 'take it or leave it', knowing enough people would stay, especially now that SS are apparently now on the same sticky slope.
-
Yes if there was a poll about SS right now I bet most replies would probably be the same.
-
50% down, portfolio 100% bigger. Credit sales are a trickle
-
they must be lowering credit sale prices to make improvement for sales, one image sell for $33 for many years, this is a ridiculous logic... at least prices must be 1-2-3 credits by size, but not, because they coluldnt destroy istock completely.... >:(
what about collect our signatures and give our demands to istock heads? Let's make a topic about it?
First of all, you'd need to get everyone to agree on the same demands.
Secondly, they'd just say 'take it or leave it', knowing enough people would stay, especially now that SS are apparently now on the same sticky slope.
how bad we couldnt control prices of our own products on everywhere... someone wins and we are loose everytime... I think there must be "microstock trade unions" to protect and defend our rights.. am I right? please ... I'd love to get your feedback... we have a saying there, "baby cant get nipples if dont cry" so I want to ask all the complainant microstockers, how we announce our voices to make a call to our rights?
-
who cares...