pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Income lose 2013 to 2016  (Read 14177 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: June 04, 2016, 02:00 »
+4
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.


« Reply #26 on: June 04, 2016, 02:33 »
+2
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

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!!

« Reply #27 on: June 04, 2016, 02:38 »
+2
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.  >:(

« Reply #28 on: June 04, 2016, 03:29 »
+1
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.

« Reply #29 on: June 04, 2016, 07:51 »
+1
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.

Rose Tinted Glasses

« Reply #30 on: June 04, 2016, 12:49 »
+2
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.

« Reply #31 on: June 04, 2016, 14:26 »
+3
If Getty was not run by Greedy bankers they could of kept istock loyalty but they couldn't do it!

madman

    This user is banned.
« Reply #32 on: June 09, 2016, 13:46 »
+1
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?

madman

    This user is banned.
« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2016, 13:57 »
+1
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...

« Reply #34 on: June 09, 2016, 14:02 »
+3
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.

wds

« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2016, 15:28 »
+1
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.

« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2016, 18:35 »
+2
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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2016, 19:12 »
+4
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.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2016, 20:03 by ShadySue »

wds

« Reply #38 on: June 09, 2016, 21:08 »
+1
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.

« Reply #39 on: June 10, 2016, 04:55 »
+3
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.

« Reply #40 on: June 10, 2016, 05:11 »
+5
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.

« Reply #41 on: June 10, 2016, 05:50 »
0
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.

« Last Edit: June 10, 2016, 06:18 by bunhill »

« Reply #42 on: June 10, 2016, 06:27 »
+1
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.

« Reply #43 on: June 10, 2016, 08:49 »
+2
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) ?

madman

    This user is banned.
« Reply #44 on: June 12, 2016, 11:47 »
+1
somebady says still uploading????

« Reply #45 on: June 14, 2016, 04:01 »
+2
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)

« Reply #46 on: June 14, 2016, 06:20 »
+1
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.

« Reply #47 on: June 14, 2016, 07:50 »
+1
Time for me to invest in a Yoda outfit and hang about on a pole in Trafalgar Square

« Reply #48 on: June 14, 2016, 11:42 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2016, 11:45 by StanRohrer »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #49 on: June 14, 2016, 12:16 »
0
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.)
« Last Edit: June 14, 2016, 13:00 by ShadySue »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
23 Replies
4626 Views
Last post April 02, 2013, 17:57
by oboy
39 Replies
11708 Views
Last post October 20, 2013, 13:36
by tickstock
63 Replies
14494 Views
Last post December 11, 2013, 14:10
by Shelma1
13 Replies
6852 Views
Last post June 07, 2016, 06:43
by Anyka
1 Replies
2835 Views
Last post December 02, 2019, 14:54
by steheap

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors