MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Photostocker on June 03, 2016, 06:57
-
Getty Image updated iStock credit pricing in 2013 and also introduced their great and amazing new subscription plans.
So, What is your annual income lose between 2013 - 2015 (2016).
I had 3000 images 2013 and now 5500 images.
My Income 2013 = 115 000 $
My Income 2014 = 110 000 $
My Income 2015 = 50 000 $
My Income 2016 = 14 000 $ (about)
I think this is NOOOT a good way :o
-
are you or were you exclusive and abandoned exclusivity in meantime?
-
are you or were you exclusive and abandoned exclusivity in meantime?
Yes! I was Exclusive but I will cancell it...there's no sense anymore! Waste of time!
-
wow
-
Good lord. Good thing they terminated our agreement.
-
I am so sorry to see that. The mismanagement of IS really is criminal. I wonder if they ever stop and think what a devastating impact their actions have had on so many people?
-
You are very lucky Photostocker! My income lose is much much higher. Down to ONLY 50% from 2013 to 2015? Sounds like a dream for me!
-
My numbers looks very similar. In five years they reduced my income by 80% and i'm still exclusive contributor.
-
Wow... The other micro sites are not the paradise... Average or high end portfolio?
-
Thankful I have not dropped that bad but I can never seem to go up. I have dropped my Exclusivity!
-
The linked article is old news. However, the second reader comment is a very interesting insight into the workings of Getty management. Anonymous worked at Getty as a mid-level manager.....
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.no/2015/02/getty-images-downward-spiral-approaches.html#comment-274962064295328885 (http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.no/2015/02/getty-images-downward-spiral-approaches.html#comment-274962064295328885)
So, as I read, the Getty management cares nothing about the business (and us at the bottom). It's all a game of converting Getty book value into cash in a few peoples pockets.
-
The obituary of microstock.
-
Getty Image updated iStock credit pricing in 2013 and also introduced their great and amazing new subscription plans.
So, What is your annual income lose between 2013 - 2015 (2016).
I had 3000 images 2013 and now 5500 images.
My Income 2013 = 115 000 $
My Income 2014 = 110 000 $
My Income 2015 = 50 000 $
My Income 2016 = 14 000 $ (about)
I think this is NOOOT a good way :o
I was going to say "WOW", but someone said that already. And then I thought about it; my own iStock income has dropped heavy and steady just as yours has and right now mine is less than 20% of what it was in 2012. So my fall from the peak is close to yours in percentage terms. I know how you feel. There are hardly words to describe how a company can self destruct itself to this level and not give a toss either about how many of their own crew they destroy with it. I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.
-
Did you start in 2013?
Is this for photography or vectors?
This drop is significant...how is this possible? You went from 100K to 14K in 3 years?
Just trying to make some sense...
Getty Image updated iStock credit pricing in 2013 and also introduced their great and amazing new subscription plans.
So, What is your annual income lose between 2013 - 2015 (2016).
I had 3000 images 2013 and now 5500 images.
My Income 2013 = 115 000 $
My Income 2014 = 110 000 $
My Income 2015 = 50 000 $
My Income 2016 = 14 000 $ (about)
I think this is NOOOT a good way :o
-
I'm down 50% from 2013 too.
I can't imagine what the plan is for Exclusivity, other than the current one of slowly suffocating it until it becomes meaningless. I'm betting they'll put the knife in come September, making it attractive only to a very few token insiders and occasional contributors who know no better.
-
Did you start in 2013?
Is this for photography or vectors?
This drop is significant...how is this possible? You went from 100K to 14K in 3 years?
Just trying to make some sense...
Getty Image updated iStock credit pricing in 2013 and also introduced their great and amazing new subscription plans.
So, What is your annual income lose between 2013 - 2015 (2016).
I had 3000 images 2013 and now 5500 images.
My Income 2013 = 115 000 $
My Income 2014 = 110 000 $
My Income 2015 = 50 000 $
My Income 2016 = 14 000 $ (about)
I think this is NOOOT a good way :o
We haven't finished 2016 yet so they will probably be down to something under 50% by the end of the year.
-
I wasn't making even near those numbers but since 2013 my earnings on IS went down almost 85% ... that place is one of the worst on the market right now.
-
Getty really messed up with Istock making Shutterstock grow so huge, so shortsighted.
So true the bankers at Getty have treated it like a piggy bank, asset stripping and loading with huge debt.
The shame is no agency has been able to fill their shoes. Alamy had potential but it's strategy is all wrong.
A new agency needs to fill the gap when Getty goes bankrupt!
-
I was ahead of the trend, my best-earning year was 2012.
2015 compared to 2012: -41%.
2016 is going to be worse.
TBH, I can't get motivated to upload for 75c a sale, and for some reason, credit buyers in particular prefer my earlier files, so I haven't been uploading anything like as much as I did previously.
-
I feel you brother. I have seen the same drops as a independent. Have other indies seen similar?
I don't know if this is typical or not. I do know I used to depend alot on Istock income, so maybe thats why ive lost so much with their decline. I am down about 50% from 4-5 years ago on SS too.
-
I have definitely seen a similar or even worse drop as an independent on istock.
-
I'm hugely down on IS but I virtually stopped uploading there a couple of years ago.
-
I'm an active enough uploader to have maintained or increased my income on most other sites. It is only istock that is plummeting for me.
-
Similar numbers than yours.
I don't think they will ever recover. And I think this is a good thing......there are still some of us with hundred thousand+ sales that remain there because the other popular micros were/are also not leading anywhere. Slowly "other" more "friendly" agencies are appearing. Istock is crumbling now and will fall apart in a not so far future......the bad reputation among artists and many buyers has just gone too far to reverse this situation...............
-
If you step back for a minute and just take a philosophical view on the whole iStock crash and burn dichotomy, you wonder how a company can have willingly joined the race to the bottom with the rest of the sub sites by having reduced their prices to roughly 10% of what they were at the peak in 2012 and thus, further driving down their own income to about 20% of what it was 3-4 years prior. Especially after 5 years of doing nothing but raising prices from around 2007-2012 and which resulted in tremendous growth and positive returns for everyone. There is just no intelligent logic to explain what they did when they pressed the self destruct button, unless or course this was part of a larger cash bleeding strategy to turn the company into a losing venture for tax purposes.
Either that or they are very smart and are secretly making more than ever before by having changed the prices on exclusive content to 3 times the price of the independent content, then paying the exclusives 40%, the independents 15%, selling a ton independent content, very little exclusive content, making 5 times more than they were before, and all the while pretending to be a bunch of bumbling idiots who just cant figure out what they are doing wrong.
Given how poorly the site is run though, the fact that it is half broken and ridden with bugs most of the time, providing terrible contributor communication and support, a best match that is horrific, etc, it is just not the behavior though of a largely successful company making millions of dollars. So I guess what has happened must be some version of the former even though there is no intelligent explanation for it.
-
Sorry to see such a big loss in income. I can assure you if they're selling buckets of independents files they're not mine.
I'm down about 20% on revenue at Istock over 4 years whilst doubling my files.
As the size of the overall library is bigger there's got to be some dilution effect due to competition but my image quality has improved.
I don't think istock could have managed the situation much worse than they did.
They key issue is that they burnt their existing contributors that provided them with great content, and flooded their library with cr^p.
-
The linked article is old news. However, the second reader comment is a very interesting insight into the workings of Getty management. Anonymous worked at Getty as a mid-level manager.....
[url]http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.no/2015/02/getty-images-downward-spiral-approaches.html#comment-274962064295328885[/url] ([url]http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.no/2015/02/getty-images-downward-spiral-approaches.html#comment-274962064295328885[/url])
So, as I read, the Getty management cares nothing about the business (and us at the bottom). It's all a game of converting Getty book value into cash in a few peoples pockets.
Who are those few peoples? We need to kick them ass!!
-
Did you start in 2013?
Is this for photography or vectors?
This drop is significant...how is this possible? You went from 100K to 14K in 3 years?
Just trying to make some sense...
Getty Image updated iStock credit pricing in 2013 and also introduced their great and amazing new subscription plans.
So, What is your annual income lose between 2013 - 2015 (2016).
I had 3000 images 2013 and now 5500 images.
My Income 2013 = 115 000 $
My Income 2014 = 110 000 $
My Income 2015 = 50 000 $
My Income 2016 = 14 000 $ (about)
I think this is NOOOT a good way :o
I strated on 2010 and only photos. It not make sense me either...and I don't know how someone can be so stupid that ruins a good business. >:(
-
Sorry to see such a big loss in income. I can assure you if they're selling buckets of independents files they're not mine.
I'm down about 20% on revenue at Istock over 4 years whilst doubling my files.
You are down by about 20% and the OP is down to only a remaining 20% of his original income. Huge difference. He also has doubled the size of his portfolio in the last 3 years like you have.
So based on this simple "back of a napkin" comparison it would seem independents have done much better than exclusives. This of course is a very isolated comparison of only 2 contributors.
-
I've been with iS since about 2002. Exclusive since about 2005. My peak downloads was in late 2010. Today, I'm at 30% of my peak. My portfolio size was flat from about 2005 to 2013. Since then I've added 30% to my port but most of it is drivel and things I don't really expect to hit a market.
Interesting to note, that even with all the subs and low priced apparent sales, my income per sale calculation shows a steady rise. Now running in the $10 per sale range. It had risen to the $4 range in late 2010, fallen to $3 in late 2011, and started moving up again. I'm iS Exclusive at 30%.
Not so interesting is that my Per Year Per Image was about $15 in late 2010 and has crashed to about $2. The lack of sales is a killer. I wonder if my lack of sales is due to the such larger inventory at iS. Or, if my downloads x price has a portfolio efficiency point that is more productive at lower prices. The answer is: Probably both issues plus more.
-
steady declines since sub sales. but what can on expect when you get only 0.75 or 2.50 per sale. that is a huge fall from 10.00 per sale.
-
If Getty was not run by Greedy bankers they could of kept istock loyalty but they couldn't do it!
-
Did you start in 2013?
Is this for photography or vectors?
This drop is significant...how is this possible? You went from 100K to 14K in 3 years?
Just trying to make some sense...
Getty Image updated iStock credit pricing in 2013 and also introduced their great and amazing new subscription plans.
So, What is your annual income lose between 2013 - 2015 (2016).
I had 3000 images 2013 and now 5500 images.
My Income 2013 = 115 000 $
My Income 2014 = 110 000 $
My Income 2015 = 50 000 $
My Income 2016 = 14 000 $ (about)
I think this is NOOOT a good way :o
I strated on 2010 and only photos. It not make sense me either...and I don't know how someone can be so stupid that ruins a good business. >:(
I dont understand why co-founder of istock need to sell so profitable business to so greedy company like Gettyimages? what else had hoped it would be when you do this so easily? dont understand, really dont... isnt that an instance of a kind of greed and perfidy?
-
by the way, my istock revenue almost ten times down in the period that mention about... but other big stock sites helped me a lot...
-
I dont understand why co-founder of istock need to sell so profitable business to so greedy company like Gettyimages? what else had hoped it would be when you do this so easily? dont understand, really dont... isnt that an instance of a kind of greed and perfidy?
Because that's what you do with businesses. You cash out. He got millions of dollars right there and then and can live a relaxed life.
-
I'm down 50% from 2013 too.
I can't imagine what the plan is for Exclusivity, other than the current one of slowly suffocating it until it becomes meaningless. I'm betting they'll put the knife in come September, making it attractive only to a very few token insiders and occasional contributors who know no better.
This is the big question, what will they do when they finally address the long time obsolete "RC system". If they really do think exclusive content is important and IF they are losing exclusives..will they provide a better deal for exclusives?...hard to imagine, but who knows.
-
I'm down 50% from 2013 too.
I can't imagine what the plan is for Exclusivity, other than the current one of slowly suffocating it until it becomes meaningless. I'm betting they'll put the knife in come September, making it attractive only to a very few token insiders and occasional contributors who know no better.
This is the big question, what will they do when they finally address the long time obsolete "RC system". If they really do think exclusive content is important and IF they are losing exclusives..will they provide a better deal for exclusives?...hard to imagine, but who knows.
"They" are bankers at heart. Just another cut for contributors while they take more money. Seems to be the result of every other change to the compensation packages at iS.
-
Almost every change they make has adverse consequences for contributors. Whenever they have 'announcements' to make, it's fun to try to guess what's coming up, but it's always worse than I've imagined, even though my guesses aren't good. E.g. they totally wrongfooted me by forcing all photo files into subs - I hadn't even imagined that might happen.
Actually, I hadn't even considered the possibility of anything like an RC scheme, and (many of us) us not getting to our previously-promised levels. I hate to think how much I've lost due to not getting to 35%, and many people who supply more than one medium were even worse affected.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if they did something quite radical. e.g. scrap RC entirely, establish fixed prices and percentages for non-exclusive and exclusive content, and put all exclusive content on Getty. Exclusives getting some content on Getty has always been a way for them to mitigate exclusive "losses", the ultimate step would be to have all exclusive content mirrored to Getty proper.
-
If Getty was not run by Greedy bankers they could of kept istock loyalty but they couldn't do it!
It wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome. The market is inevitably over supplied and therefore images are cheap and getting cheaper. Boutique agencies can stand apart from that by staying small.
Big companies don't have the option to downsize. They have investors to satisfy (or disappoint) - they cannot turn themselves back into boutiques. But their cheap content is always going to undermine their own prestige collections. In this respect they are biting their own tails.
-
Almost every change they make has adverse consequences for contributors. Whenever they have 'announcements' to make, it's fun to try to guess what's coming up, but it's always worse than I've imagined, even though my guesses aren't good. E.g. they totally wrongfooted me by forcing all photo files into subs - I hadn't even imagined that might happen.
Actually, I hadn't even considered the possibility of anything like an RC scheme, and (many of us) us not getting to our previously-promised levels. I hate to think how much I've lost due to not getting to 35%, and many people who supply more than one medium were even worse affected.
I lost the 35% I had. Never to regain it, and certainly not now. I was so very nearly at 40%.
It was, and still is, extremely disappointing.
-
I lost the 35% I had. Never to regain it, and certainly not now. I was so very nearly at 40%.
It was, and still is, extremely disappointing.
It would still have been 35% or 40% of ever lower prices and ever fewer sales in an increasingly saturated market. The old prices were not sustainable for a company of that size, owned by never satisfied investors in a free-for-all market. Only boutiques can charge more. Only by staying small and only by never competing with themselves.
I wonder how the big companies will retain their valuations unless they find something different to sell.
-
I am as 20% as well of what I used to be in 2008-2010. Steady decline since then and I am still uploading every f-day.
-
I am as 20% as well of what I used to be in 2008-2010. Steady decline since then and I am still uploading every f-day.
Just Fridays now: 8) ?
-
somebady says still uploading????
-
Interesting to note, that even with all the subs and low priced apparent sales, my income per sale calculation shows a steady rise. Now running in the $10 per sale range. It had risen to the $4 range in late 2010, fallen to $3 in late 2011, and started moving up again. I'm iS Exclusive at 30%.
I am not sure but I have a feeling that you are looking at the wrong numbers somehow. As subs and partner downloads (so basically all the cheap ones) are being reported with a month delay, it seems easy to only see the average regular sale. My partner is also still exclusive with iStock at the 40% level but her average download value has dropped to $3 this year (from $4 last year and $12 in 2013).
I couldn't see a reason why your average sale would still be in the $10 range as with the exception of EL's and the very few large GI Sales, the $10 is what you can get for single image sales but all subs are paying only $0.75/2.50, so the average must be lower than $10.
(yeah, for the record: $3 average per sale is still four times more than what I make as a non-exclusive in microstock, so iStock exclusives are still at an advantage despite all the negative changes)
-
Yes, the figures given by Michael are roughly in line with mine - I'm exclusive at 35%, and in 2015 my RPD for credit sales only (not including ELs, Subs, PP or GI) was $8.68, while my overall RPD including everything was $3.89.
In 2013, the corresponding figures were $9.52 and $6.11.
Total DLs have increased in that time, but only from Subs, not from credit sales, which are down; hence the drop in the overall RPD.
-
Time for me to invest in a Yoda outfit and hang about on a pole in Trafalgar Square
-
Interesting to note, that even with all the subs and low priced apparent sales, my income per sale calculation shows a steady rise. Now running in the $10 per sale range. It had risen to the $4 range in late 2010, fallen to $3 in late 2011, and started moving up again. I'm iS Exclusive at 30%.
I am not sure but I have a feeling that you are looking at the wrong numbers somehow. As subs and partner downloads (so basically all the cheap ones) are being reported with a month delay, it seems easy to only see the average regular sale. My partner is also still exclusive with iStock at the 40% level but her average download value has dropped to $3 this year (from $4 last year and $12 in 2013).
I couldn't see a reason why your average sale would still be in the $10 range as with the exception of EL's and the very few large GI Sales, the $10 is what you can get for single image sales but all subs are paying only $0.75/2.50, so the average must be lower than $10.
(yeah, for the record: $3 average per sale is still four times more than what I make as a non-exclusive in microstock, so iStock exclusives are still at an advantage despite all the negative changes)
My Credits income runs roughly $7.80 - $9.90. PP sales are a lot of $.40 via Thinkstock but I get the occasional Getty sale: $2.82, $17.50, $15.00, $15.29, in recent months. The occasional GI sales ($78.33, $44.77, $2.00, $2.00 $60.00) can help out the averages. I get the usual Subs at $.34 - $.75 but with fairly regular $2.50 thrown in. It's been over 3 months without an Extended License. But during the prior year I've had a few months with $50 each and one at $126.
So I may have to go back and check my spreadsheet calculations (I've found errors before) but I expect they are on track. Maybe I miss-stated the reading of my charts. I'm not at the charts at this moment so that will have to be later.
Hmmm.... Using the iS charts for 2015, dividing total income by total downloads I get $3.37 per download.
I've often wondered where is the break point to exit iS Exclusivity and spread independently across multiple sites. Your 4x comment helps me noodle those considerations. I'm afraid some of my older stuff may not be of quality to pass inspections today - even though it still sells.
-
I'm far further down the pecking order, so my total averages are:
2013: $5.93
2014: $5.41
2015: $2:51
2016: $1.94
(I have very few images on Getty and don't tend to do well there - sales as low as 22c. Also ELs have dried up for me. More disturbingly, even my subs average has shot down from $1.06 last month to 91c this month.)