Author Topic: iStock's Alexa Rank continues to drop (Read 52082 times)

Jeffrey · « **on:** December 13, 2012, 19:58 »

Even in December, it dropped for about 10 places.

Jeffrey · « **Reply #1 on:** December 15, 2012, 22:48 »

450 today.

I hope and pray it will go back to its usual 220 place in 2010.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #2 on:** December 16, 2012, 03:09 »

When people come here and start a post that is basically wishing that iStock do badly, and thus wishing that people who rely on iStock income to feed their family and pay their rent and mortgage, also do badly, some people might not look too kindly on those sort of sentiments. If income does decrease at iStock, as you wish, and people who are exclusive there, and quite possibly better and more successful than you at producing images, give up exclusivity, you may well wish for something different when their work floods onto the agencies you use and your sales start to drop.

emblem · « **Reply #3 on:** December 16, 2012, 04:05 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on December 16, 2012, 03:09

When people come here and start a post that is basically wishing that iStock do badly, and thus wishing that people who rely on iStock income to feed their family and pay their rent and mortgage, also do badly, some people might not look too kindly on those sort of sentiments. If income does decrease at iStock, as you wish, and people who are exclusive there, and quite possibly better and more successful than you at producing images, give up exclusivity, you may well wish for something different when their work floods onto the agencies you use and your sales start to drop.

I couldn't agree more...when are people going to understand this.

aeonf · « **Reply #4 on:** December 16, 2012, 04:15 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on December 16, 2012, 03:09

When people come here and start a post that is basically wishing that iStock do badly, and thus wishing that people who rely on iStock income to feed their family and pay their rent and mortgage, also do badly, some people might not look too kindly on those sort of sentiments. If income does decrease at iStock, as you wish, and people who are exclusive there, and quite possibly better and more successful than you at producing images, give up exclusivity, you may well wish for something different when their work floods onto the agencies you use and your sales start to drop.

Well said !

luissantos84 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 16, 2012, 05:44 »

the OP haven't done what you guys agree, read before please, this is ridiculous

Microbius · « **Reply #6 on:** December 16, 2012, 05:47 »

Yup, the OP was saying he hopes IS climbs back up the rankings.
People are just reading what they want.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #7 on:** December 16, 2012, 05:53 »

Quote

Yup, the OP was saying he hopes IS climbs back up the rankings.
People are just reading what they want

You're right, it's early, I misunderstood/misread. I'm so used to seeing negative comments relating to wishing to see the demise of IS ( and I do have those thoughts myself at times, so I understand them)that I misread this as being in that category.

Microbius · « **Reply #8 on:** December 16, 2012, 05:54 »

Fair enough, I realized my post as unnecessarily confrontational too!

emblem · « **Reply #9 on:** December 16, 2012, 06:09 »

Yep...I'm at fault as well...apologies as well.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #10 on:** December 16, 2012, 06:10 »

Quote from: Microbius on December 16, 2012, 05:54

Fair enough, I realized my post as unnecessarily confrontational too!

ahah no worries, I wasn't the guy thumbing down the posts

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #11 on:** December 16, 2012, 06:11 »

Quote

I hope and pray it will go back to its usual 220 place in 2010.

Let's start again. Yes, I agree 100%!

Skylinehunter · « **Reply #12 on:** December 20, 2012, 21:52 »

Quote from: vlad_the_imp on December 16, 2012, 03:09

When people come here and start a post that is basically wishing that iStock do badly, and thus wishing that people who rely on iStock income to feed their family and pay their rent and mortgage, also do badly, some people might not look too kindly on those sort of sentiments. If income does decrease at iStock, as you wish, and people who are exclusive there, and quite possibly better and more successful than you at producing images, give up exclusivity, you may well wish for something different when their work floods onto the agencies you use and your sales start to drop.

Yep, I'm sure they would love their sales being trashed because ISP has many good exclusive photographers. Do they really want more competition even amongst an already saturated market?

markrhiggins · « **Reply #13 on:** December 20, 2012, 22:30 »

Yep more people leaving IS would lead to more saturation. How bout as a special deal with give them upload limits at SS etc same as newbies have at IS

. Oh and special indie review times

. The worrying thing for exclusives is the older (and sometimes newer stuff) is not a walk in for getting accepted elsewhere. There maybe some egos being trashed.

cathyslife · « **Reply #14 on:** December 21, 2012, 07:47 »

i dont know how many times it has to said, but i will jump in and say it again. wishing a greedy, lying company goes down the tubes and wishing ill of exclusives are NOT the same thing. i dont know about all you guys, but when i am involved with a company who is losing money, i make sure i have a plan whereby i will not starve when that company finally does go under. if you choose to ignore that, and blame the ill-wishers for the problem, thats nobody's fault but your own.

as far as the threats about exclusives flooding the market, contributors compete all day long, every freakin day, with each other. and dont forget, those who chose to not go exclusive and have been selling at agencies for years now, have a much stronger foothold than noobs coming in.

its clear that the company is going downhill. we had no part in the management or decisions of that company, so dont blame contributors. in fact, at every step of the way, contributors tried to give suggestions on what would help, and they were ignored.

we ALL lost out and are still losing out. this just isnt about exclusives. our agent betrayed us for the almighty dollar and they are suffering the consequences. as we all are.

it reminds me of the stages of grief...a lot of us saw this coming months or years ago.we have moved past it, found other sources of income and now are watching it go down in flames. you guys chose to believe, so now you are just in the beginning stages of denial.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #15 on:** December 21, 2012, 07:55 »

Quote from: cclapper on December 21, 2012, 07:47

i dont know how many times it has to said, but i will jump in and say it again. wishing a greedy, lying company goes down the tubes and wishing ill of exclusives are NOT the same thing. i dont know about all you guys, but when i am involved with a company who is losing money, i make sure i have a plan whereby i will not starve when that company finally does go under. if you choose to ignore that, and blame the ill-wishers for the problem, thats nobody's fault but your own.

as far as the threats about exclusives flooding the market, contributors compete all day long, every freakin day, with each other. and dont forget, those who chose to not go exclusive and have been selling at agencies for years now, have a much stronger foothold than noobs coming in.

its clear that the company is going downhill. we had no part in the management or decisions of that company, so dont blame contributors. in fact, at every step of the way, contributors tried to give suggestions on what would help, and they were ignored.

we ALL lost out and are still losing out. this just isnt about exclusives. our agent betrayed us for the almighty

Well said!
Furthermore, I think sticking with istock as exclusive is beyond all a business decision. The warning signs are written all over since over a year now.

vlad_the_imp · « **Reply #16 on:** December 21, 2012, 09:06 »

Quote

wishing a greedy, lying company goes down the tubes and wishing ill of exclusives are NOT the same thing.

It may not be the same but as one would be a product of the other, there is a connection, however tenuous you believe it to be.

Quote

have a much stronger foothold than noobs coming in.

At a simplistic level this may be true, it takes no account of the hugely varying abilities of the people involved though. There are a lot of amateurs in microstock, who are producing OK images but who would have a big struggle to make a living outside RF. There are those who may come into non-exclusivity after being forced out by the antics of iStock who already make a good living as freelancers, who perhaps have higher sales and whose images are just a lot more professional. When people like that start flooding into the market, some people may have to look out.

cathyslife · « **Reply #17 on:** December 21, 2012, 10:23 »

call me tenuous and simplistic, as you wish. :-)

edit...i am one of those "amateurs" you are referring. as soon as "pros" realized there was money to be made, they jumped right in. they have been around almost since the beginning. i still make money on my port. i remain unthreatened. by the way, the definition of a pro is someone who is paid to undertake a task. as soon as a contributor sells an image, they are a pro. so calling some contributors "amateurs" is technically incorrect. or do you mean "amateurs" as someone who is somehow less of a businessperson than yourself?

velocicarpo · « **Reply #18 on:** December 21, 2012, 10:42 »

You can even turn the argument around. What makes those Contributors support with their exclusivity - and thus with all their creativity and work - a company which is harmful to the whole industry? Everybody makes his decisions based on whatever criterias and everybody has to face the consequence of these - in the good and in the bad.

I strongly believe in the responsibility of the individual for his actions.

Jeffrey · « **Reply #19 on:** December 21, 2012, 10:44 »

452 today, the lowest I've seen.

john_woodcock · « **Reply #20 on:** December 21, 2012, 10:47 »

Quote

What makes those Contributors support with their exclusivity - and thus with all their creativity and work - a company which is harmful to the whole industry?

I think that is a bit insulting. I 'support' IS because they pay me a reasonable amount and I have earned a lot of money there, and to leave would mean I lost a lot of money.
My family depend on that income. I'd suggest they are no more harmful than any other company who seeks to profit from the labour of others.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #21 on:** December 21, 2012, 10:54 »

Quote from: Jeffrey on December 15, 2012, 22:48

450 today.

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** December 21, 2012, 11:38 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on December 21, 2012, 10:42

You can even turn the argument around. What makes those Contributors support with their exclusivity - and thus with all their creativity and work - a company which is harmful to the whole industry? ...
I strongly believe in the responsibility of the individual for his actions.

I'd rather stay for the moment exclusive with iStock than possibly sell images to commercial companies at large sizes and get cents for my image. I can't possibly get my head round that, and it seems (from previous info here) the percentage I'd get from SS would be a few percentage points lower than I get just now (I realise that indies get paid cents too often, though not for very large images, sell at a ridiculous percentage and they're forced to be in the PP and sell for cents).
The sub model has been even more harmful to the industry than RF, though it was probably an inevitable consequence of RF/digital cameras.

Poncke · « **Reply #23 on:** December 21, 2012, 11:55 »

In the real sense of the word an amateur is uneducated and a professional studied for his skills. At least thats what wiki says

An amateur (French amateur "lover of", from Old French and ultimately from Latin amatorem nom. amator, "lover") is generally considered a person attached to a particular pursuit, study, or science without formal training, also referred to as an autodidact.

incarno · « **Reply #24 on:** December 21, 2012, 12:07 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 21, 2012, 11:38

The sub model has been even more harmful to the industry than RF, though it was probably an inevitable consequence of RF/digital cameras.
[/quote]
+1

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock's Alexa Rank continues to drop (Read 52082 times)

Jeffrey

Jeffrey

vlad_the_imp

emblem

aeonf

luissantos84

Microbius

vlad_the_imp

Microbius

emblem

luissantos84

vlad_the_imp

Skylinehunter

markrhiggins

cathyslife

velocicarpo

vlad_the_imp

cathyslife

velocicarpo

Jeffrey

john_woodcock

luissantos84

ShadySue

Poncke

incarno

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors