Author Topic: IS hits rock bottom (Read 33614 times)

stockastic · « **Reply #50 on:** March 29, 2011, 20:55 »

Quote from: pseudonymous on March 29, 2011, 20:51

unfortunately, GL has one massive flaw. It doesn’t allow the buyer to buy varying sizes at various prices. Unless they want to buy a large image, I cannot see them spending the extra money when they only need an XS size.

Good point and actually I wasn't aware of that. But if I think about it for a moment I realize that maybe that's ok because these XS sales aren't adding up to anything anyway.

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #51 on:** March 29, 2011, 20:58 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 29, 2011, 19:00

Quote from: pseudonymous on March 29, 2011, 18:31
Yes but I wasn't talking about work that isn't exceptional. I was talking about the winners that are unique. A lot of contributors have a portion of their stock that stands out from everybody elses work. It's these images they should be protecting and not making them available everywhere. It's also these images that contributors should be striving to produce.

I do see your point, but if you are doing that then I would have thought istock was the place to put them, not Dreamstime where the sales volume is much lower. But doing that will lose you all the sales from that material at Shutterstock, Fot, Dreamstime and anywhere else you might put it. Unless you get widespread buyer migration.

The idea of being non-exclusive is to maximise returns from the widest possible number of outlets, not to concentrate the 10% of the portfolio that makes 80% of the money all in one place. If you're going to effectively write off all the agencies bar one, why not go for exclusivity?

I would never sign up with a company like istock. I said it almost a year ago that they were bonkers to put it politely. I don’t like anything about that agency or their management. They’ve been on a downward spiral for quite some time now and have made some pretty dodgy decisions. I also don’t care for selling high volumes with low commissions. As I said, I don’t want to devalue my own work. I’d rather receive $5.63 royalty from one sale than 70 $0.08 sales to make up that amount at iStock.

I didn’t say anywhere that you should keep your images on one site only. I used DT and FT as an example where one agent pays well for a high selling image and the other pays you peanuts for the same high selling image. One of my images that reached level 5, I pulled it from Fotolia, Bigstock and 123rf and it’s selling more at the other agents. I never joined iStock because I never liked them. I haven’t joined Shutterstock because I’m not fond of subscriptions. I left the image with Dreamstime, Canstock, Graphic Leftovers and Stockfresh. It’s a unique image that’s in demand and more than 60% of my entire earnings come from that one particular image. It's these sort of images that one needs to protect.

Okay, I've said my piece. We'll just go around in circles if we keep this up and I don't want to disappear up my own butt like the oozelum bird

TheSmilingAssassin · « **Reply #52 on:** March 29, 2011, 21:02 »

Quote from: stockastic on March 29, 2011, 20:55

Quote from: pseudonymous on March 29, 2011, 20:51
unfortunately, GL has one massive flaw. It doesn’t allow the buyer to buy varying sizes at various prices. Unless they want to buy a large image, I cannot see them spending the extra money when they only need an XS size.
Good point and actually I wasn't aware of that. But if I think about it for a moment I realize that maybe that's ok because these XS sales aren't adding up to anything anyway.

That's true in most cases. But on the other hand, going back to my example using DT for a level 5, I receive $5.63 for an XS. It really depends on the image and the agents. I still like GL and promote them wherever I can. I still get the odd sale here and there. I really hope things pick up with them.

lagereek · « **Reply #53 on:** March 30, 2011, 00:51 »

I believe there are agencies we should support and GL, is one of them, small team trying to do something differant from the usual meat market. All things aside, the percentage cut, the best match screw up, etc, IS, is still a good agency and for many the foundation of Micro, unfortunately I cant see them get back to their former glory days. Getty very effectively put a stop to that as they do with most things nowdays.

Neither do I believe buyers has any sentiments for agency or photographer ( that was the old days) buyers go with the prices, they have to.

As I said before, the agencies have very greatfully allowed us, the contributors, to so completely flod the market that our supply is by lightyears outstripping the demand and its beginning to show, how? well every agencies search-engine is collapsing, possibly with the exeption of Shutterstock.
I mean just look at some of the searches among the bigger agencies and you will see whole series of almost identical shots plastering a full page, etc, this is a down out stupidity but frankly I dont think they have the know-how, to fix it. All the search-engines are just fumbling in the dark.

Quality of reviewers/editors? well just look at it? at IS, I can understand this job does not provide any glamour anymore but still when a reviewer can only see the values in the same old generic, cats, dogs, flower shot, well, he shouldnt be a reviewer, when he cant see the differance between natural colors and a toning image, he shouldnt be doing this job.

I dont know? maybe its time to re-think the whole strategy?

qwerty · « **Reply #54 on:** March 30, 2011, 01:34 »

If buyers are willing move around as much as you say and based on price how come yuri's sold a million licences on Istock when they can buy them at other agencies for lower.

I understand your logic but I don't think it would work for me. Maybe it works for you but how can you measure the unmeasurable.

lagereek · « **Reply #55 on:** March 30, 2011, 02:36 »

Quote from: qwerty on March 30, 2011, 01:34

If buyers are willing move around as much as you say and based on price how come yuri's sold a million licences on Istock when they can buy them at other agencies for lower.

I understand your logic but I don't think it would work for me. Maybe it works for you but how can you measure the unmeasurable.

Its a big mistake to compare everything to Yuri! he is an institution! and yes, possibly one of the few that buyers actually look for, he is well known among buyers, designers, etc and his name stand for a certain panache, cache, if you know what I mean. That alone can many times result in that buyers are prepared to pay slightly more.

Me? Im well known in the Industrial advertising world for assignment works but I can assure you not many are looking for me in the world of Micro.

Pixel-Pizzazz · « **Reply #56 on:** March 30, 2011, 12:24 »

How many more of them before you get that reported (last sentence of story on linked page) coveted lens cap?
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/yourmoney/41592872.html?page=2&c=y

luissantos84 · « **Reply #57 on:** March 30, 2011, 12:30 »

Quote from: Pixel-Pizzazz on March 30, 2011, 12:24

How many more of them before you get that reported (last sentence of story on linked page) coveted lens cap?
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/yourmoney/41592872.html?page=2&c=y

from ebay

Risamay · « **Reply #58 on:** March 30, 2011, 14:44 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 28, 2011, 16:36

Quote from: Risamay on March 28, 2011, 16:27
Quote from: OhGoAway! on March 28, 2011, 15:06
Ugh. I'm having a hell of a time adjusting to my new fancy 23 cent royalties for XS You know it's bad when you can't tell by looking at the balance if you've had sales or not.

And yes, that partner program. I'm thoroughly against it, always have been, but man, would I love to make more than a buck or two a day again

Without the PP, I'd not clear $100 per month now.

As an exclusive, I was clearing about $500 per month.

The PP offered (and still does) a nice monthly boost.

only 100$ with a 2500 portfolio?

Yup.

Risamay · « **Reply #59 on:** March 30, 2011, 14:48 »

Quote from: OhGoAway! on March 28, 2011, 18:06

Quote from: ShadySue on March 28, 2011, 17:19
Quote from: Risamay on March 28, 2011, 16:27
Without the PP, I'd not clear $100 per month now.
As an exclusive, I was clearing about $500 per month.
To be honest , a lot of remaining exclusives are also dropping $$ and dl, though not quite that much - yet.

My numbers were dropping like a stone before the crown fell off, but now things are just BLEAK. I'm uploading and taking photos, but it's slow.

Ditto. My day job has ramped up and I just can't put in the stock hours I'd like, after hours. So my uploading to other agencies has been slow. I essentially created and uploaded a small number of files to a handful of agencies in January and haven't submitted anything since. I figure, what's the rush? As I'm already so late to the party at the other big agencies. I may as well take my time as, thank god, stock photography is not my main source of income.

lagereek · « **Reply #60 on:** March 30, 2011, 15:14 »

Quote from: Risamay on March 30, 2011, 14:48

Quote from: OhGoAway! on March 28, 2011, 18:06
Quote from: ShadySue on March 28, 2011, 17:19
Quote from: Risamay on March 28, 2011, 16:27
Without the PP, I'd not clear $100 per month now.
As an exclusive, I was clearing about $500 per month.
To be honest , a lot of remaining exclusives are also dropping $$ and dl, though not quite that much - yet.

My numbers were dropping like a stone before the crown fell off, but now things are just BLEAK. I'm uploading and taking photos, but it's slow.

Ditto. My day job has ramped up and I just can't put in the stock hours I'd like, after hours. So my uploading to other agencies has been slow. I essentially created and uploaded a small number of files to a handful of agencies in January and haven't submitted anything since. I figure, what's the rush? As I'm already so late to the party at the other big agencies. I may as well take my time as, thank god, stock photography is not my main source of income.

I like your shots of Venice, close-ups and straight to the point. Nice!

Pixart · « **Reply #61 on:** March 31, 2011, 00:11 »

Bloody h*ll, by accident I see I have an 8 cent sale yesterday too. They make it so difficult to actually see your sales, you have to dig to find them. Not to mention they randomly update your stats and credits so you have no clue what is going on in real time.

SNP · « **Reply #62 on:** March 31, 2011, 00:41 »

there's a greasemonkey script available from Sean Locke that enables you to view the size/frequency of dls for each file on the My Uploads page. you can get it here:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=258262&page=1

ShadySue · « **Reply #63 on:** March 31, 2011, 04:36 »

Quote from: Pixart on March 31, 2011, 00:11

Bloody h*ll, by accident I see I have an 8 cent sale yesterday too. They make it so difficult to actually see your sales, you have to dig to find them. Not to mention they randomly update your stats and credits so you have no clue what is going on in real time.

That's true, very annoying and probably designed to keep us guessing, but AFAIK, the 'balance' in the bar at the bottom of the page (unless you've chosen to hide it) is updated in real time and you can check sales in real time via My Uploads > Last Download. It is a footer, though.

lisafx · « **Reply #64 on:** March 31, 2011, 11:51 »

Quote from: SNP on March 31, 2011, 00:41

there's a greasemonkey script available from Sean Locke that enables you to view the size/frequency of dls for each file on the My Uploads page. you can get it here:

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=258262&page=1

Yes, this script is a real godsend

Artemis · « **Reply #65 on:** April 04, 2011, 14:13 »

I just received freaking $10 for a 125 credit EL! At $1/credit i should receive $21,27... this means LESS than $0,50 per credit!
I'm so outraged i want to go over to freaking Calgary and slap someone in the face....still thinking about shooting a ticket to CR, but i guess i already know what the answer will be. ARGH!!!!!!

Pixart · « **Reply #66 on:** April 04, 2011, 14:27 »

Something can't be right. Please call them on it. They mention an "as low as .95" credit in the introductory paragraph, but there's no credits even offered that low.

If they paid 125 credits at .95 = $118.75. If you make the minimum of 15%, you should get at least $17.8 shouldn't you?

How does one get the .95 credits they mention in the first line.

Buy Pay-as-you-go credits whenever you need them. Use your credits to download royalty-free stock photography, vector illustrations, video footage, audio tracks and Flash files. Credits cost as little as 95¢ USD/credit.

Pay-as-you-go credit packages
Credits Price (USD)
12 $18.50 ($1.54/credit)
26 $39.50 ($1.52/credit)
50 $75.00 ($1.50/credit)
120 $175.00 ($1.46/credit)
300 $430.00 ($1.43/credit)
600 $800.00 ($1.33/credit)
1000 $1,250.00 ($1.25/credit)
2000 $2,250.00 ($1.13/credit)

cathyslife · « **Reply #67 on:** April 04, 2011, 14:30 »

Behind-the-scenes special deals are made with companies and they get deep discounts. So yes, apparently $.50 per credit is entirely possible.

jamirae · « **Reply #68 on:** April 04, 2011, 14:32 »

Quote from: cclapper on April 04, 2011, 14:30

Behind-the-scenes special deals are made with companies and they get deep discounts. So yes, apparently $.50 per credit is entirely possible.

still I think you should call them on it. make them tell you it was a special deal - then keep that documentation for when/if you decide to have an audit done - just in case.

caspixel · « **Reply #69 on:** April 04, 2011, 15:14 »

Quote from: Pixart on April 04, 2011, 14:27

Buy Pay-as-you-go credits whenever you need them. Use your credits to download royalty-free stock photography, vector illustrations, video footage, audio tracks and Flash files. Credits cost as little as 95¢ USD/credit.

Pay-as-you-go credit packages
Credits Price (USD)
12 $18.50 ($1.54/credit)
26 $39.50 ($1.52/credit)
50 $75.00 ($1.50/credit)
120 $175.00 ($1.46/credit)
300 $430.00 ($1.43/credit)
600 $800.00 ($1.33/credit)
1000 $1,250.00 ($1.25/credit)
2000 $2,250.00 ($1.13/credit)

That's false advertising right there. They really need a class action lawsuit against them for all the crap they've been doing, whether its accidental or deliberate.

cathyslife · « **Reply #70 on:** April 04, 2011, 15:16 »

Quote from: jamirae on April 04, 2011, 14:32

Quote from: cclapper on April 04, 2011, 14:30
Behind-the-scenes special deals are made with companies and they get deep discounts. So yes, apparently $.50 per credit is entirely possible.

still I think you should call them on it. make them tell you it was a special deal - then keep that documentation for when/if you decide to have an audit done - just in case.

That's a good point. Then, coupled with caspixels post above, it would all be documented.

ShadySue · « **Reply #71 on:** April 04, 2011, 15:24 »

see also this current thread:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312002&page=1

Artemis · « **Reply #72 on:** April 04, 2011, 15:26 »

I sent them a ticket mainly because i want to SOMETHING... but i expect a standard reply about discounts being given to 'loyal customers'.

We really, really need this audit get going... i've heard around in my surroundings but there doesnt seem to be anyone who knows enough to really help out or give the right info so i cant get it started ;(

Megastock · « **Reply #73 on:** April 04, 2011, 15:30 »

Quote from: caspixel on April 04, 2011, 15:14

Quote from: Pixart on April 04, 2011, 14:27

Buy Pay-as-you-go credits whenever you need them. Use your credits to download royalty-free stock photography, vector illustrations, video footage, audio tracks and Flash files. Credits cost as little as 95¢ USD/credit.

Pay-as-you-go credit packages
Credits Price (USD)
12 $18.50 ($1.54/credit)
26 $39.50 ($1.52/credit)
50 $75.00 ($1.50/credit)
120 $175.00 ($1.46/credit)
300 $430.00 ($1.43/credit)
600 $800.00 ($1.33/credit)
1000 $1,250.00 ($1.25/credit)
2000 $2,250.00 ($1.13/credit)

That's false advertising right there. They really need a class action lawsuit against them for all the crap they've been doing, whether its accidental or deliberate.

It says right under that table: "You can also purchase 5000 credits for $5,250. USD, or 10000 credits for $10,000.00 USD, or 20000 credits for $19,000 USD. To order, phone Customer Sales toll-free 1-866-478-6251."

Or in the PDF: http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/mail_fax_orderform_q1_2011.pdf. Not that I imagine many would spend $20K on a credit package up front, but it seems you can actually get credits for $0.95 as advertised...

caspixel · « **Reply #74 on:** April 04, 2011, 15:37 »

Quote from: Megastock on April 04, 2011, 15:30

Quote from: caspixel on April 04, 2011, 15:14
Quote from: Pixart on April 04, 2011, 14:27

Buy Pay-as-you-go credits whenever you need them. Use your credits to download royalty-free stock photography, vector illustrations, video footage, audio tracks and Flash files. Credits cost as little as 95¢ USD/credit.

Pay-as-you-go credit packages
Credits Price (USD)
12 $18.50 ($1.54/credit)
26 $39.50 ($1.52/credit)
50 $75.00 ($1.50/credit)
120 $175.00 ($1.46/credit)
300 $430.00 ($1.43/credit)
600 $800.00 ($1.33/credit)
1000 $1,250.00 ($1.25/credit)
2000 $2,250.00 ($1.13/credit)

That's false advertising right there. They really need a class action lawsuit against them for all the crap they've been doing, whether its accidental or deliberate.

It says right under that table: "You can also purchase 5000 credits for $5,250. USD, or 10000 credits for $10,000.00 USD, or 20000 credits for $19,000 USD. To order, phone Customer Sales toll-free 1-866-478-6251."

Or in the PDF: http://www.istockphoto.com/docs/mail_fax_orderform_q1_2011.pdf. Not that I imagine many would spend $20K on a credit package up front, but it seems you can actually get credits for $0.95 as advertised...

Okay, not false advertising, but sure looks like a bait and switch when the homepage says as low as $0.95. Of course anyone who is spending $20k on credits over there is probably getting one of those super special discounts and actually getting their credits for $.0.50.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: IS hits rock bottom (Read 33614 times)

stockastic

TheSmilingAssassin

TheSmilingAssassin

lagereek

qwerty

lagereek

Pixel-Pizzazz

luissantos84

Risamay

Risamay

lagereek

Pixart

SNP

ShadySue

lisafx

Artemis

Pixart

cathyslife

jamirae

caspixel

cathyslife

ShadySue

Artemis

Megastock

caspixel

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors