pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is Istock still worth it, at least as a low earner?  (Read 10701 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 18, 2013, 04:32 »
0
The whole Istock fiasco happened when I was just trying to get accepted. Not a good way to start this business ><

But anyway, leaving aside the Google problem, Im interested if its still worth it to get accepted there. I know theyre not what they used to be, but how much did the earnings actually drop? People say their sales decreased dramatically, but I dont know what to believe. They dropped to 0 or does it still qualify at least as a middle tier website? Or at least as a low earner?

If the earnings, as low as they are, would surpass let's say Envato, I'm thinking it would still be worth submitting to them.

Please keep your answers on topic. I know everyone is annoyed about this website, but I read all your opinions in other threads. Im only interested in what I asked.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2013, 04:35 by morning.light »


« Reply #1 on: March 18, 2013, 04:45 »
+1
Istock + the partner programme still holds second place in my earnings list (I don't use Fotolia and I've got a portfolio on iS that stretches back over nine years which probably helps).

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #2 on: March 18, 2013, 05:14 »
0
As you can see from the chart on the right, they still second of the top tier on average for indies, though falling rapidly.
Probably worth it, if you can live with their shenanigans.- and not having a clue about what they'll throw at us next.  :o >:(
« Last Edit: March 18, 2013, 05:32 by ShadySue »

Microbius

« Reply #3 on: March 18, 2013, 06:32 »
0
Still bring in a big chunk of income, but as others have said they are sliding down the polls rapidly (for me the only site with consistently decreasing revenue)
Given how painful the upload process is, and the upload limits, I am not sure I would bother if my portfolio wasn't already there: by the time I had all my work up there they wont be earning enough to justify it.

B8

« Reply #4 on: March 18, 2013, 07:51 »
+4
Income has dropped for most long time contributors on iStock by 30%-40% or more. For some that drop has happened quickly in a matter of just a few months. For others the fall has happened more gradually over a long period of a year or more, but the net drop is roughly the same for everyone. Nearly 6 months has gone by now since, when on September 1, 2012, iStock basically pressed the self destruct button by creating a vast number of site issues. 6 months later, they have now finally fixed most of the programming problems they created 6 months ago. That includes the zoom tool, lightboxes, best match, file description edits previously not updating correctly, and they finally reversed the prices to showing credits again instead of cash prices by default. The views still aren't working correctly though and the site is probably the slowest microstock site there is, but those aren't probably the biggest deal breakers. The main problem is downloads and incomes still continue to fall from a lack of buying. So this decline can no longer be blamed on site problems, which previously was the red herring everyone thought was the cause of the rapidly declining sales. It is obvious now though that many of the buyers have simply packed up and left and are not coming back. As an 11th hour last ditch effort to try and turn things around they have hired consultants and have started doing buyer and contributor surveys, but it is all a bit too little and too late. For many long time contributors it is viewed as a sinking ship at this point, but it still is better than many of the smaller ships as the poll results show. So until it sinks completely many contributors will probably still hang in there. Hopefully there is something bigger and better that will eventually replace iStock, but still time will tell on that. To answer your question though, no, I would say it isn't worth it as a new contributor joining now. Views and downloads on newly uploaded content is very low for everyone across the board, especially for non exclusive contributors. So the people still earning from iStock are making some dosh only because of older content that is still selling a bit. Good luck.   
« Last Edit: March 18, 2013, 08:00 by B8 »

« Reply #5 on: March 18, 2013, 08:22 »
0
It really depends on the number of images you have and if they have a problem with the type of stuff you do but, all things being equal, they will still make a hell of a lot more than mid or low tier.

« Reply #6 on: March 18, 2013, 09:39 »
-2
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 15:58 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #7 on: March 18, 2013, 09:48 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 15:57 by Audi 5000 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2013, 09:53 »
0
It's true what was said above about new files. They're getting few if any views because there's something wrong with the way views are counted, and because best match is linked to views (as well as other factors), new files are tending to sink, even if downloaded a couple of times.
So @OP you might consider the middle sellers on the right column as equally likely to perform for you, unless things improve a lot at iS.
Bear in mind that although iS is falling rapidly, even the much praised SS has fallen from 100 to 80.9 (not as much as iS has fallen for indies).

« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2013, 13:20 »
+1
I don't know if you consider this relevant to your situation, but in the last 2 months IS has dropped to last place on my earnings list.
I have been with them as an indie since 2004.  Admittedly, during my 5 years as a wedding photog I didn't upload much and my portfolio there was/is micro-scopic (ha).
Their uploading process takes way too long and the returns don't justify the hassle.
If I was just starting out I would put my efforts into  SS, FT, and DT.  IS is indeed a sinking ship and I would be getting as many files on the other 3 as quickly as possible before their horde of pet rats figure that out and start deserting them en masse.
Tick, that is interesting about Yuri.  I gave you a + to make up for one of those -.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2013, 13:24 by Gel-O Shooter »

« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2013, 13:22 »
-1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 16:02 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2013, 13:33 »
+1
Tick, have you read some of that stuff they post on the IS forum???  Our sales are going down like the Titanic (We Luv IS!). They screwed us over with that Getty deal (We luv IS anyway!).  Sean got the boot (Oh, they'd never do that to US....We Luv IS!)
Yup, pet rats.
Sorry, kinda off-topic.

« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2013, 13:34 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 16:02 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2013, 13:52 »
+2
^I'm not sure why that got a -?  It's factual and relevant.   Yuri is independent and he still has 3 photos that are earning him more money than any photo on Shutterstock over the last year.

« Last Edit: May 30, 2013, 21:46 by Sadstock »

« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2013, 14:03 »
+2
Stay away from istockphoto, they will only abuse you.
You will get frustrated and angry and you cannot imagine in how many ways they will cheat you.
And when they have cheated you, they will still be arrogant.
Also... sales are declining, and from being a solid provider ( for exclusives), they cannot provide anymore.

For non exclusives its only a onesided abusive relationship.
I have deleted my images on istock, and have seen my sales rise at the other agencies.

« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2013, 14:05 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 16:02 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2013, 16:34 »
0
Yes - on balance. It is extra hassle, but if you use Deep Meta uploading can be made easier. Unless you are against IS on ethical grounds, it makes little business sense to discount them without trying.

« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2013, 17:10 »
0
Way more trouble and aggravation than it's worth.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2013, 17:52 »
0
Sales are slow to very slow but I've noticed that ALL my images are being transferred to Thinkstock.  Those sales are reported only once a month.  Haven't seen anything for this month.

I'll stop short of saying YES to the question.  I will, however, not delete what is already there.


fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music

« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2013, 18:34 »
0
In my case iStock(2390) is better (believe or not) than SS (2893). Still #1 earner despite all the events.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #20 on: March 19, 2013, 02:50 »
0
Quote
In my case iStock(2390) is better (believe or not) than SS (2893)

Why 'believe it or not'? iStock still remains better for many, hence the number of exclusives who remain there, despite the problems. There is a core of iStock haters here who give the impresssion that nothing good happens there, which is far from the truth.

Here's a quote from DavidGoh ( who I think may be a poster here)in the iStock Illustration forums...

Quote
Hello people! I recently became exclusive illustrator, and already on my first day I've had my BDE!

« Reply #21 on: March 19, 2013, 02:57 »
0
I don't think that most people starting to upload now would earn much there as an independent.   My earnings have gone down considerably but I still get a decent cheque each month, mostly because of older proven images selling. I have stopped uploading there now for many reasons one of them being that my new images never sell.
Of the last 20 images that show on my dls page.   

6 are from 2006
2 from 2007
5 from 2008
5 from 2009
1 from 2010
1 from2011
Would be interested to know if anybody else is seeing this sort of pattern.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 03:05 by fotografer »

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #22 on: March 19, 2013, 03:26 »
0
Quote
Would be interested to know if anybody else is seeing this sort of pattern.

Here are my last 20 sales
1 - 2005
2 - 2006
1 - 2007
4 - 2008
4 - 2009
1 - 2010
2 - 2011
3 - 2012
2 - 2013

« Reply #23 on: March 19, 2013, 06:11 »
0
My portfolio date from 2005. My last 20 sales break down like this:

2005: 0
2006: 4
2007: 5
2008: 1
2009: 1
2010: 2
2011: 0
2012: 5
2013: 2

I though it might be that the older files had high download figures so they appeared higher in the search, but there seems to be no real pattern that I can detect, other than middle aged images, i.e. those from 2008 to 2011 are doing particularly badly. I don't know whether that means they're not being returned in search results.

« Reply #24 on: March 19, 2013, 06:16 »
0
I was so surprised by the stats for my last 20 that I went on to the second page to give a better sample size (otherwise I would only have had one sale from the last four years).

4     2004
14   2005
4     2006
4     2007
7     2008
1     2009
1     2010
1     2011
4     2012


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
29 Replies
12155 Views
Last post January 26, 2008, 22:14
by digitalfood
108 Replies
49417 Views
Last post May 11, 2009, 09:54
by RaFaLe
32 Replies
12118 Views
Last post June 15, 2015, 12:26
by ArenaCreative
1 Replies
3373 Views
Last post January 07, 2016, 02:03
by Jo Ann Snover
5 Replies
3578 Views
Last post May 06, 2016, 03:58
by KONJINA

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors