MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock's Alexa Rank continues to drop  (Read 31956 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

aspp

« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2012, 12:20 »
+2
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.

Some of the successful IS exclusives are producing hundreds of quality stock images every month and are going to have no problem selling their work at SS if they decide to.

Back to the KK era many IS exclusives have been nervous of the direction in which the road seemed to be leading and will have been producing images which are keyworded and ready to upload elsewhere. I suspect that many others would decide to focus on new images rather than spending too much time on older favourites. I doubt many people would spend much time looking through their old work unless it is ready to upload.

For many successful and moderately successful photographers, quitting IS exclusivity is not the big deal that some here imagine. Also remember that many are also successful commercial photographers and will also have RM portfolios. RM and commercial report work is still the main income for many photographers.


« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2012, 12:44 »
+1

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

Wise words.

« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2012, 12:52 »
+2
istock has to go down for the sake of our future.. our future prosperity depends on istock going to hell.. they have to, and WILL go down sooner or later.. I am hoping it will be very soon..

the industry have to realize that you JUST DON'T mess with contributor royalties and when you DO, you go to hell.. istock's demise will send a clear message to the whole industry and save our future royalties and earnings.. no other agency will ever dare to cut our royalties and steal our money..

Exclusives are responsible to make their back up plans.. if they insist not to make a back up plan as cclapper suggested, then they will go down with istock..

regardless of the situation exclusives are in, istock MUST go to hell, and take the abysmal standards they are trying to set with them..

possible flood of exclusives do not worry me a tiny bit, but istock's low standards and GREEDY, INCOMPETENT, UNCARING approach is the REAL threat for us and our future.. If they "god forbid that" succeed, there will be many more companies lowering royalties.. I guess none of you want that to happen?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2012, 12:54 by cidepix »

« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2012, 13:03 »
+1
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.


in addition, this is the very first sentence of the wiki definition:
a professional is a person who is paid to undertake a specialized set of tasks and to complete them for a fee. it stands to reason, as it relates to micro, that an "amateur" Would have also gained knowledge along the way, otherwise their images would not be sellable. if they are sellable, then they, in my opinion, would be considered a professional. but the word amateur has typically been flung around here when a person wants to be derogatory towards anyone they dont feel deserves to be selling photos. this is all off topic, of course, so i will let it go at that.

« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2012, 13:04 »
0
istock has to go down for the sake of our future.. our future prosperity depends on istock going to hell.. they have to, and WILL go down sooner or later.. I am hoping it will be very soon..

the industry have to realize that you JUST DON'T mess with contributor royalties and when you DO, you go to hell.. istock's demise will send a clear message to the whole industry and save our future royalties and earnings.. no other agency will ever dare to cut our royalties and steal our money..

Exclusives are responsible to make their back up plans.. if they insist not to make a back up plan as cclapper suggested, then they will go down with istock..

regardless of the situation exclusives are in, istock MUST go to hell, and take the abysmal standards they are trying to set with them..

possible flood of exclusives do not worry me a tiny bit, but istock's low standards and GREEDY, INCOMPETENT, UNCARING approach is the REAL threat for us and our future.. If they "god forbid that" succeed, there will be many more companies lowering royalties.. I guess none of you want that to happen?


Istock won't "go down". It might become a lot smaller and somewhat irrelevant but it will still be there. Ultimately it can just sit there as a server at Getty HQ.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #30 on: December 21, 2012, 13:04 »
-1
Could it possibly have been that iStock saw how little people were willing to take from sales at other places and acted accordingly?

« Reply #31 on: December 21, 2012, 13:10 »
0
Could it possibly have been that iStock saw how little people were willing to take from sales at other places and acted accordingly?

sorry Sue, what are you talking about? hope its not SS, I believe there is no need to talk once more about ODs, SODs, EL...

actually that attitude of saying its other agencies doing the dirty job doesn't make any sense, nobody is paying us as low as 15%, FT is the next one paying 20% and they did after iStock

« Reply #32 on: December 21, 2012, 13:15 »
0
Istock won't "go down". It might become a lot smaller and somewhat irrelevant but it will still be there. Ultimately it can just sit there as a server at Getty HQ.

I will take that.. :)

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #33 on: December 21, 2012, 13:21 »
0
Could it possibly have been that iStock saw how little people were willing to take from sales at other places and acted accordingly?
sorry Sue, what are you talking about? hope its not SS, I believe there is no need to talk once more about ODs, SODs, EL...
I was talking about SS base prices, inter alia. Actual money paid to the suppliers, rather than percentages.
I am not defending iS's percentage reductions, breaking of promises, etc.

« Reply #34 on: December 21, 2012, 13:30 »
0
Could it possibly have been that iStock saw how little people were willing to take from sales at other places and acted accordingly?
sorry Sue, what are you talking about? hope its not SS, I believe there is no need to talk once more about ODs, SODs, EL...
I was talking about SS base prices, inter alia. Actual money paid to the suppliers, rather than percentages.
I am not defending iS's percentage reductions, breaking of promises, etc.

so iStock opted to lower our royalties (they were incredible high before) because of a 249$ subscription plan from SS (that is live for years), they (iStock) had a big meeting and decided that lowering us would help SS selling less files

curious they haven't decided to lower their pricing over the different collections

oh and I almost forgot the PP, iStock is lost and SS isn't the one to blame
« Last Edit: December 21, 2012, 13:43 by luissantos84 »

« Reply #35 on: December 21, 2012, 14:21 »
0
Quote
istock's demise will send a clear message to the whole industry and save our future royalties and earnings

Ironically, I believe one reason given for not going to SS by IS exclusives is the small commission paid. I did look once, was it 25c-35c? Something like that.

« Reply #36 on: December 21, 2012, 14:26 »
+1

I was talking about SS base prices, inter alia. Actual money paid to the suppliers, rather than percentages.
I am not defending iS's percentage reductions, breaking of promises, etc.

actual money I receive from SS is 4 - 5 times more than IS.. SS alone makes istock insignificant for me.. add to that other 16 agencies and IS is 1/10 or sometimes 1/11 of my total earnings.. add to that beaking of promises by IS..

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #37 on: December 21, 2012, 14:37 »
+2

I was talking about SS base prices, inter alia. Actual money paid to the suppliers, rather than percentages.
I am not defending iS's percentage reductions, breaking of promises, etc.

actual money I receive from SS is 4 - 5 times more than IS.. SS alone makes istock insignificant for me.. add to that other 16 agencies and IS is 1/10 or sometimes 1/11 of my total earnings.. add to that beaking of promises by IS..
The breaking of promises is indefensible. No argument.
I'm not hearing great things about SS income from everyone, however, off this forum.
It's really hard to compare directly - if you weren't sumitting to 16 agencies, you could spend more time producing content. Not only uploading, but working out the keywording which works best for each, the sort of images that do best at each ... The more agencies you have, the harder to chase up misuses. If you were exclusive, you'd be earning a higher commission.
I'm actually not in the business of persuading people to become exclusive - it's probably not the best choice for most people, especially those submitting different media.

« Reply #38 on: December 21, 2012, 14:50 »
0
sorry for being so open Sue but I don't think they are being generous with you, looking over your Blog numbers at your iStock profile I can easily see that you had around 100 sales per month on the latest months, we are talking about a nice > 3k portfolio, I don't think that is acceptable even if they are paying you 5 to 10$ a sale, anyway I am nobody to tell you what to do, I am sure you know what works best for you, wish you the best and I do appreciate your posts everyday here at MSG

« Reply #39 on: December 21, 2012, 14:57 »
+2
Quote
istock's demise will send a clear message to the whole industry and save our future royalties and earnings


Ironically, I believe one reason given for not going to SS by IS exclusives is the small commission paid. I did look once, was it 25c-35c? Something like that.

Just how much of a subscription site is Shutterstock?

aspp

« Reply #40 on: December 21, 2012, 15:01 »
+1
actual money I receive from SS is 4 - 5 times more than IS.. SS alone makes istock insignificant for me.. add to that other 16 agencies and IS is 1/10 or sometimes 1/11 of my total earnings.. add to that beaking of promises by IS..

I do not believe that the SS model is sustainable longer term. Especially given that they are now a public company and must exceed market expectations every quarter. At some point they will not - then they will either have to squeeze the suppliers or else they will have to go private again. And squeeze the suppliers. Either way they have committed themselves to needing to continually grow and to exceed market expectations. I do not believe that the stock photo market, which is now relatively mature, has so much growth potential.

Unless they move into a different business and grow that. Which is possible.

« Reply #41 on: December 21, 2012, 15:10 »
0
Quote
actual money I receive from SS is 4 - 5 times more than IS.

That is great for you, and being non-ex works well for you. I do not believe I would earn 4 or 5 times my IS income at SS, hence what works for one, doesn't necessarily work for another.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #42 on: December 21, 2012, 15:15 »
+1
sorry for being so open Sue but I don't think they are being generous with you, looking over your Blog numbers at your iStock profile I can easily see that you had around 100 sales per month on the latest months, we are talking about a nice > 3k portfolio, I don't think that is acceptable even if they are paying you 5 to 10$ a sale, anyway I am nobody to tell you what to do, I am sure you know what works best for you, wish you the best and I do appreciate your posts everyday here at MSG
You are entitled to your opinion of course, and what's best will be different for everyone. Like I said, I cannot get my head round the idea that a commercial company could possibly use one of my images, maximum size and I'd only get 27c or whatever the minimum is, if they bought a sub. PP is as bad, of course.
I know that many people who produce far more commercial stock than I do (I'm not really interested in commercial stuff, and don't like some commercial in-uses I've found) are more than happy to supply SS, and I also know about the non-sub sales - the proportion of which seems to vary vastly between contributors.

As for numbers of downloads, in theory I'd rather have 10 sales for $5 than 50 sales for 10c, because that's 40 more places the pic can be lifted from. In practice, yesterday I found one of my E+s, which has been downloaded only 11 times, on over 200 unrelated sites (mostly commercial), and I can't begin to work out which might be legitimate/stolen.  >:(

Anyway, I'm not saying never, I'm just saying 'not yet'.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2012, 15:29 by ShadySue »

traveler1116

« Reply #43 on: December 21, 2012, 15:21 »
-1
Like I said, I cannot get my head round the idea that a commercial company could possibly use one of my images, maximum size and I'd only get 27c or whatever the minimum is, if they bought a sub. PP is as bad, of course.
The PP is not as bad as SS, you would get 40 cent's per DL instead of 25-38 at SS.  It's bad but not as bad.  BTW strange coincidence that the PP pays 38-44 cents per DL, I wonder if that has anything to with SS and what would happen if SS raised it's payouts.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2012, 15:23 by traveler1116 »

aspp

« Reply #44 on: December 21, 2012, 15:24 »
0
I cannot get my head round the idea that a commercial company could possibly use one of my images, maximum size and I'd only get 27c

.. less the 1/3 of that they would then potentially deduct and give to the US federal govt.

« Reply #45 on: December 21, 2012, 15:31 »
+1
Like I said, I cannot get my head round the idea that a commercial company could possibly use one of my images, maximum size and I'd only get 27c or whatever the minimum is, if they bought a sub. PP is as bad, of course.
The PP is not as bad as SS, you would get 40 cent's per DL instead of 25-38 at SS.  It's bad but not as bad.  BTW strange coincidence that the PP pays 38-44 cents per DL, I wonder if that has anything to with SS and what would happen if SS raised it's payouts.

there will be always happy exclusives and happy indies, guess we agree there but please once for all don't say SS is paying 25 cents or even 38 cents, this month I am getting close to 65 cents which is 29% (2.24$ revenue announced on the last report), I will say again that doesn't mean I don't want a raise but things doesn't look the bad as you always paint...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #46 on: December 21, 2012, 15:32 »
0
I cannot get my head round the idea that a commercial company could possibly use one of my images, maximum size and I'd only get 27c


.. less the 1/3 of that they would then potentially deduct and give to the US federal govt.


That was also a concern of mine, but it was relieved here:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/tax-thing-for-non-us-contributors

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #47 on: December 21, 2012, 15:37 »
+1
Like I said, I cannot get my head round the idea that a commercial company could possibly use one of my images, maximum size and I'd only get 27c or whatever the minimum is, if they bought a sub. PP is as bad, of course.
The PP is not as bad as SS, you would get 40 cent's per DL instead of 25-38 at SS.  It's bad but not as bad.  BTW strange coincidence that the PP pays 38-44 cents per DL, I wonder if that has anything to with SS and what would happen if SS raised it's payouts.

there will be always happy exclusives and happy indies, guess we agree there but please once for all don't say SS is paying 25 cents or even 38 cents, this month I am getting close to 65 cents which is 29% (2.24$ revenue announced on the last report), I will say again that doesn't mean I don't want a raise but things doesn't look the bad as you always paint...

I didn't say what you got. I said what I'd get.
29% is (slightly) less than I get on iStock so nothing to get excited about; and 30% on iStock is less than I was promised when they said I'd be grandfathered in to my next level. Also, even your 65c could be for a full-frame image, for commercial use. That's my real objection.
Devil and deep blue sea. Rock and hard place.

« Reply #48 on: December 21, 2012, 15:41 »
0
Like I said, I cannot get my head round the idea that a commercial company could possibly use one of my images, maximum size and I'd only get 27c or whatever the minimum is, if they bought a sub. PP is as bad, of course.
The PP is not as bad as SS, you would get 40 cent's per DL instead of 25-38 at SS.  It's bad but not as bad.  BTW strange coincidence that the PP pays 38-44 cents per DL, I wonder if that has anything to with SS and what would happen if SS raised it's payouts.

there will be always happy exclusives and happy indies, guess we agree there but please once for all don't say SS is paying 25 cents or even 38 cents, this month I am getting close to 65 cents which is 29% (2.24$ revenue announced on the last report), I will say again that doesn't mean I don't want a raise but things doesn't look the bad as you always paint...

I didn't say what you got. I said what I'd get.
29% is (slightly) less than I get on iStock so nothing to get excited about; and 30% on iStock is less than I was promised when they said I'd be grandfathered in to my next level. Also, even your 65c could be for a full-frame image, for commercial use. That's my real objection.
Devil and deep blue sea. Rock and hard place.

my post was oriented for traveler1116, believe he is one the most active istock defender, hope he does well forever, I really do

traveler1116

« Reply #49 on: December 21, 2012, 16:14 »
0
my post was oriented for traveler1116, believe he is one the most active istock defender, hope he does well forever, I really do
I think you are misreading me a little bit but I do hope you have a great year (maybe SS will up their RPD to a buck or two).


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2983 Views
Last post August 06, 2008, 04:56
by leaf
49 Replies
23285 Views
Last post September 09, 2009, 01:47
by RacePhoto
39 Replies
6482 Views
Last post June 26, 2013, 12:07
by Ron
32 Replies
6378 Views
Last post January 13, 2015, 21:58
by tickstock
1 Replies
1889 Views
Last post July 28, 2016, 16:51
by CJH Photography

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle