MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Jeffrey on December 13, 2012, 19:58
-
Even in December, it dropped for about 10 places.
:'(
-
450 today.
I hope and pray it will go back to its usual 220 place in 2010.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 !
-
the OP haven't done what you guys agree, read before please, this is ridiculous
-
Yup, the OP was saying he hopes IS climbs back up the rankings.
People are just reading what they want.
-
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.
-
Fair enough, I realized my post as unnecessarily confrontational too!
-
Yep...I'm at fault as well...apologies as well.
-
Fair enough, I realized my post as unnecessarily confrontational too!
ahah no worries, I wasn't the guy thumbing down the posts ;)
-
I hope and pray it will go back to its usual 220 place in 2010.
Let's start again. Yes, I agree 100%!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
452 today, the lowest I've seen.
-
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.
-
450 today.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Could it possibly have been that iStock saw how little people were willing to take from sales at other places and acted accordingly?
-
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
-
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.. :)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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..
-
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.
-
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
-
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? (http://www.microstockposts.com/just-how-much-of-a-subscription-site-is-shutterstock/)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 $5 than 50 sales for 10c, because that's 40 more places the pic can be lifted from. In practice, yesterday I found one of my E+s, which has been downloaded only 11 times, on over 200 unrelated sites (mostly commercial), and I can't begin to work out which might be legitimate/stolen. >:(
Anyway, I'm not saying never, I'm just saying 'not yet'.
-
Like I said, I cannot get my head round the idea that a commercial company could possibly use one of my images, maximum size and I'd only get 27c or whatever the minimum is, if they bought a sub. PP is as bad, of course.
The PP is not as bad as SS, you would get 40 cent's per DL instead of 25-38 at SS. It's bad but not as bad. BTW strange coincidence that the PP pays 38-44 cents per DL, I wonder if that has anything to with SS and what would happen if SS raised it's payouts.
-
I cannot get my head round the idea that a commercial company could possibly use one of my images, maximum size and I'd only get 27c
.. less the 1/3 of that they would then potentially deduct and give to the US federal govt.
-
Like I said, I cannot get my head round the idea that a commercial company could possibly use one of my images, maximum size and I'd only get 27c or whatever the minimum is, if they bought a sub. PP is as bad, of course.
The PP is not as bad as SS, you would get 40 cent's per DL instead of 25-38 at SS. It's bad but not as bad. BTW strange coincidence that the PP pays 38-44 cents per DL, I wonder if that has anything to with SS and what would happen if SS raised it's payouts.
there will be always happy exclusives and happy indies, guess we agree there but please once for all don't say SS is paying 25 cents or even 38 cents, this month I am getting close to 65 cents which is 29% (2.24$ 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 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 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/tax-thing-for-non-us-contributors)
-
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.
-
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
-
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).
-
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.
I'd say that SS is extremely sustainable longer term. Don't forget that Jon still owns 56% of the business so he gets to do want he wants. Whilst that remains there will be no pressure from shareholders. SSTK have already published their growth expectations until the end of 2013, nice and steady, just like it's been for the last few years.
I don't think SS really have to do anything more than what they're already doing to grow the business __ they're succeeding mainly by the greed and failure of others. Not only that but SS have a war-chest of $100M+ for 'possible acquisitions' too. That should provide some handy growth when they choose to deploy it.
SS have never described their business as 'unsustainable' either __ unlike Istock. Talk about a lie inadvertently becoming the truth.
-
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).
no I am not, why don't you manage to understand we don't get 25 cents at SS, its not that hard really...
one thing I am sure, they might drop me to 30 cents (don't think so) but if that happens at least I was screwed in 2013 not 2009 ;D
-
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).
no I am not, why don't you manage to understand we don't get 25 cents at SS, its not that hard really...
one thing I am sure, they might drop me to 30 cents (don't think so) but if that happens at least I was screwed in 2013 not 2009 ;D
Ok. Good luck next year.
-
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).
no I am not, why don't you manage to understand we don't get 25 cents at SS, its not that hard really...
one thing I am sure, they might drop me to 30 cents (don't think so) but if that happens at least I was screwed in 2013 not 2009 ;D
Ok. Good luck next year.
same to you and I am serious!
-
Even in December, it dropped for about 10 places.
:'(
This is the explanation for increase sales on SS FT and DT... :))) nice
-
I usually do not comment much on forums but.. you people are crazy. Have you any idea how much quality content there's is on iStock? If those exclusives decide to transfer their portfolio to SS your earnings will suffer. Big time. It's just that the content on iStock is of higher quality as a whole. I know how you'll respond to that but it is the truth. You just have to hope that iStock will reclaim its previous position. It would be better for everybody.
Another thing - I did not expect all those negative words here -- those people are your colleagues and are too counting on microstock income to feed their families. I thought that photographers, as artists, will be better people, but no -- it is the usual gloating.
-
I usually do not comment much on forums but.. you people are crazy. Have you any idea how much quality content there's is on iStock? If those exclusives decide to transfer their portfolio to SS your earnings will suffer. Big time. It's just that the content on iStock is of higher quality as a whole.
quality is realative everyone has a different opinion here. But stock isn't about quality it's about buyers need. I don't care if exclusive stay exclusive, but to be dependant on one agency isn't very smart regardless how big the short benefits might be.
-
I usually do not comment much on forums but.. you people are crazy. Have you any idea how much quality content there's is on iStock? If those exclusives decide to transfer their portfolio to SS your earnings will suffer. Big time. It's just that the content on iStock is of higher quality as a whole. I know how you'll respond to that but it is the truth. You just have to hope that iStock will reclaim its previous position. It would be better for everybody.
Another thing - I did not expect all those negative words here -- those people are your colleagues and are too counting on microstock income to feed their families. I thought that photographers, as artists, will be better people, but no -- it is the usual gloating.
I totally agree with you. I'm scared to death of the thought of having to compete with all the IS exclusives at all the other sites and really feel for you all if you were in the postition where you would have to get your ports up everywhere else. I think it's really uncharitable to wish for the demise of IS when so many contributors would have a really hard time until they got established at all the other sites.
-
In this field to me Professional means someone who is reliant on photography as a significant proportion of income and an amateur is someone who makes a few dollars but is not reliant on the income. It has NO relationship to the quality of the image produced.
-
In this field to me Professional means someone who is reliant on photography as a significant proportion of income and an amateur is someone who makes a few dollars but is not reliant on the income. It has NO relationship to the quality of the image produced.
thats a semi pro kind of, amateurs in general, dont make money on what they do
-
I'd say that SS is extremely sustainable longer term. Don't forget that Jon still owns 56% of the business so he gets to do want he wants. Whilst that remains there will be no pressure from shareholders.
None of us know for sure and everybody is entitled to guess as to what Jon's long term plans are, and it's only that a guess.
My guess is that Jon learnt from the huge mistake that Bruce Livingstone made when he sold iStock to Getty for much less than it was worth and then had to stay on for two years at the 'beck and call' of the Getty management, made even worse by seeing his company sore in profits.
So I'm guessing Jon has learnt from Bruce's business naivety, has 'sold out' wisely retaining the majority share so that he still controls the company until such time (by contract or freewill) that he can get out, and obviously because he's the main shareholder he'll still get a big chunk of whatever SS is worth at that time.
I don't for one second believe Jon is looking to remain any longer than he has to, and I certainly don't share the optimism you have about SS.
-
but to be dependant on one agency isn't very smart regardless how big the short benefits might be.
I love it when people tell me I'm not very smart.
-
I love it when people tell me I'm not very smart.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I didn't tell you anything....
-
In this field to me Professional means someone who is reliant on photography as a significant proportion of income and an amateur is someone who makes a few dollars but is not reliant on the income. It has NO relationship to the quality of the image produced.
So, for example, an actor or a musician is only professional until they have made their first million. After that, they are not reliant on their income so they become amateurs?
In one sense, yes, because they are then doing it for the love of it (i.e. the job or the fame or ...), but I don't think that's what you meant.
-
I am happy for two things this holiday season...
1. That exclusives are the only people who really need money. And all these years I thought I needed money to pay for rent, food, etc.
2. That I have never competed with anyone these seven years I have been in micro. No competition from better shooters than myself. But I really need to watch out, because if istock folds...BAM, life for me on microstock will be over.
Yikes. On both points.
In this field to me Professional means someone who is reliant on photography as a significant proportion of income and an amateur is someone who makes a few dollars but is not reliant on the income. It has NO relationship to the quality of the image produced.
Amateurs do not make any money on what they do. The minute you get paid for your product, you are considered a professional. Even the 28 cents per image that people keep saying SS pays counts as getting paid. I do agree with you, though, on the fact that being a professional has nothing to do with the quality of the image. It's all about sellability.
-
"So, for example, an actor or a musician is only professional until they have made their first million. After that, they are not reliant on their income so they become amateurs?"
No because they have made their nest egg from their profession which they are living on.
Some professionals love their work too I think there are always grey areas but I think what I said holds most of the time ;D
-
None of us know for sure and everybody is entitled to guess as to what Jon's long term plans are, and it's only that a guess.
My guess is that Jon learnt from the huge mistake that Bruce Livingstone made when he sold iStock to Getty for much less than it was worth and then had to stay on for two years at the 'beck and call' of the Getty management, made even worse by seeing his company sore in profits.
So I'm guessing Jon has learnt from Bruce's business naivety, has 'sold out' wisely retaining the majority share so that he still controls the company until such time (by contract or freewill) that he can get out, and obviously because he's the main shareholder he'll still get a big chunk of whatever SS is worth at that time.
I don't for one second believe Jon is looking to remain any longer than he has to, and I certainly don't share the optimism you have about SS.
Have you read 'Fast Food Nation' by Eric Schlosser? It features, as one of MacDonalds' suppliers, Jack Simplot, aka 'The Potato King of Idaho'. At the time the book was written he was well into his 80's and a multi-billionaire ... but working just as hard as ever to make more money and expand his empire. There's a photo of him sitting atop a pile of potatoes and cackling away "Most people sell out once they've made $10M or £20M but I just kept on going".
I think Livingstone falls into the "most people" category of entrepreneur whereas Oringer is the other type (like Branson or Trump for example) for whom business becomes an all-consuming game, their primary source of pleasure. Those people can never sell out. If Jon was going ... he'd already have gone. He's now in the game to win it.
Jon's given several interviews recently (since the successful IPO) and, if you read his answers carefully, he does actually drop quite a few clues as to his plans. In my view he is intent on wiping out his competition in dominating the image/footage industry, and that would include Getty and Corbis, but he's also a patient man and a strategist. I think he's enjoying the game immensely.
-
Jon's given several interviews recently (since the successful IPO) and, if you read his answers carefully, he does actually drop quite a few clues as to his plans. In my view he is intent on wiping out his competition in dominating the image/footage industry, and that would include Getty and Corbis, but he's also a patient man and a strategist. I think he's enjoying the game immensely.
I don't think it's healthy when one company dominates any industry, no matter how great it seems in the short term. Once competition is eliminated, they can screw their suppliers and their buyers as much as they like. Until the next upstart comes along.
Then - the bigger they come, the harder they fall.
-
Jon's given several interviews recently (since the successful IPO) and, if you read his answers carefully, he does actually drop quite a few clues as to his plans. In my view he is intent on wiping out his competition in dominating the image/footage industry, and that would include Getty and Corbis, but he's also a patient man and a strategist. I think he's enjoying the game immensely.
I don't think it's healthy when one company dominates any industry, no matter how great it seems in the short term. Once competition is eliminated, they can screw their suppliers and their buyers as much as they like. Until the next upstart comes along.
Then - the bigger they come, the harder they fall.
But what if Jon wants to share that domination WITH buyers and contributors. He sees the mistakes made at Getty, squeezing money of buyers AND contribs. If Jon succeeds to dominate but/and shares it with buyers and contribs, he wont fall.
-
"So, for example, an actor or a musician is only professional until they have made their first million. After that, they are not reliant on their income so they become amateurs?"
No because they have made their nest egg from their profession which they are living on.
Some professionals love their work too I think there are always grey areas but I think what I said holds most of the time ;D
Still disagree with your definition, sorry, although I agree about the grey areas.
By your definition, I'm currently an amateur, because I'd eat and stay warm even if I had no photo income, and I'm selling to feed my travel habit.
But if, by some quirk of the improbability drive, twins arrived into my care tomorrow, I'd suddenly become a professional overnight, as I'd need that income to support them.
Though in reality, I'd do better becoming a 'professional' burger flipper.
-
Jon's given several interviews recently (since the successful IPO) and, if you read his answers carefully, he does actually drop quite a few clues as to his plans. In my view he is intent on wiping out his competition in dominating the image/footage industry, and that would include Getty and Corbis, but he's also a patient man and a strategist. I think he's enjoying the game immensely.
I don't think it's healthy when one company dominates any industry, no matter how great it seems in the short term. Once competition is eliminated, they can screw their suppliers and their buyers as much as they like. Until the next upstart comes along.
Then - the bigger they come, the harder they fall.
But what if Jon wants to share that domination WITH buyers and contributors. He sees the mistakes made at Getty, squeezing money of buyers AND contribs. If Jon succeeds to dominate but/and shares it with buyers and contribs, he wont fall.
It's a mighty big if, and doesn't have many precedents, but it is theoretically possible. At 29% of a small amount, it's not looking too great at the moment.
But like you say, we'd only know his motives when/if he squashes the opposition. In the philosophical trade, it's called eschatological verification.
-
Jon's given several interviews recently (since the successful IPO) and, if you read his answers carefully, he does actually drop quite a few clues as to his plans. In my view he is intent on wiping out his competition in dominating the image/footage industry, and that would include Getty and Corbis, but he's also a patient man and a strategist. I think he's enjoying the game immensely.
I don't think it's healthy when one company dominates any industry, no matter how great it seems in the short term. Once competition is eliminated, they can screw their suppliers and their buyers as much as they like. Until the next upstart comes along.
Then - the bigger they come, the harder they fall.
But what if Jon wants to share that domination WITH buyers and contributors. He sees the mistakes made at Getty, squeezing money of buyers AND contribs. If Jon succeeds to dominate but/and shares it with buyers and contribs, he wont fall.
It's a mighty big if, and doesn't have many precedents, but it is theoretically possible. At 29% of a small amount, it's not looking too great at the moment.
But like you say, we'd only know his intentions when/if he squashes the opposition. In the philosophical trade, it's called eschatological verification.
I love reading your posts, and I like your choice of words, you have a great vocabulaire. Most of the time I understand what you are saying but this time I had to Google eschatological verification, you see I am not native English :)
I love this quote I found:
This premise is best explained by John Hick's allegory of the quest to the Celestial City. In this parable, a theist and an atheist are both walking down the same road. The theist believes there is a destination, the atheist believes there is not. If they reach the destination, the theist will have been proven right, however if there is no destination on an endless road, this can never be verified. This is an attempt to explain how a theist expects some form of life or existence after death and an atheist does not. They both have separate belief systems and live life accordingly, but logically one is right and the other is not. If the theist is right, he will be proven so when he arrives in the afterlife. However, if the atheist is right, they will simply both be dead and nothing will be verified.
-
Have you read 'Fast Food Nation' by Eric Schlosser? It features, as one of MacDonalds' suppliers, Jack Simplot, aka 'The Potato King of Idaho'. At the time the book was written he was well into his 80's and a multi-billionaire ... but working just as hard as ever to make more money and expand his empire. There's a photo of him sitting atop a pile of potatoes and cackling away "Most people sell out once they've made $10M or £20M but I just kept on going".
I think Livingstone falls into the "most people" category of entrepreneur whereas Oringer is the other type (like Branson or Trump for example) for whom business becomes an all-consuming game, their primary source of pleasure. Those people can never sell out. If Jon was going ... he'd already have gone. He's now in the game to win it.
Jon's given several interviews recently (since the successful IPO) and, if you read his answers carefully, he does actually drop quite a few clues as to his plans. In my view he is intent on wiping out his competition in dominating the image/footage industry, and that would include Getty and Corbis, but he's also a patient man and a strategist. I think he's enjoying the game immensely.
I haven't read the book you mention but have read similar one's, however a quick search on the Simplot company and the first thing of note is that it's a Privately owned company, so by your own testimont Jon has already broken Jacks rule. Either way one thing I do know is that you should never compare companies or people that run them in different industry sectors.
As I said none of us know what Jon's plans are, I do know however that he's quite a shrewd businessman and if he's hinted at something there's a reason, that reason may just be to halt any panic of what might be to come, I'd do the same if I we're him. What do you think would happen if he came out and said "I've sold half the company but I've got to stay on and run it for two years after which I'll sell up my half and be gone, then the 'suits' will bleed it dry". Jon is astute enough to know that the way Bruce Livingstone sold out has been a complete disaster for all concerned. I doubt anybody knows what he's going to do until he does it, and because of that speculating is, IMO, pointless.
On another note, I got a hand signed Christmas card from him in the mail this morning, which I thought was a nice touch (yours will probably have kisses on it :P), whatever he does I'm sure he'll be successful as he appreciates that there are human beings at the other end of the supply chain. Apart from Alamy every other agency sent me the usual e-card, no doubt they'll say it's to save money but I've always thought that if someone has gone to the trouble of signing and posting a card in the mail it is more meaningful.
-
I usually do not comment much on forums but.. you people are crazy. Have you any idea how much quality content there's is on iStock? If those exclusives decide to transfer their portfolio to SS your earnings will suffer. Big time. It's just that the content on iStock is of higher quality as a whole.
quality is realative everyone has a different opinion here. But stock isn't about quality it's about buyers need. I don't care if exclusive stay exclusive, but to be dependant on one agency isn't very smart regardless how big the short benefits might be.
So, you can read the future and know that even though at time istock had 70% of the market share of micro stock market and paid up to double to exclusives that it was stupid to go exclusive.
Sorry you are really bad at math to call exclusives stupid back then. If there is no exclusive at IS it's not only a flood of images everywhere else, there is no floor under pricing and all agencies will sell on price
Hey you indies look better now but for the five years you left a lot of money on the table. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars for black diamond indies. You did not make it up on sub sites. As evidenced by Jon's $400000000.
And any money in the future is up for grabs as in your indie position over the last five years does not put in front of the line.
-
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I didn't tell you anything....
but to be dependant on one agency isn't very smart
I'm dependent on one agency, I am therefore, according to your quote above, not very smart.
-
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I didn't tell you anything....
but to be dependant on one agency isn't very smart
I'm dependent on one agency, I am therefore, according to your quote above, not very smart.
So what! Maybe I told myself you can't know, again I didn't tell you anything...
-
Great response. It would be even better if it made sense.
-
Great response. It would be even better if it made sense.
I does make sense!
-
Its about appetite for risk - its more risky to be reliant on one source of income this has been offset by higher returns. It seems that risk is increasing and returns reducing.
FWIW as an independent taking this business more seriously if it wasn't for this site I find I-Stock a good site. Sorry for being a heretic!
-
Wow, significant drop I noticed today - 474!
Hope it comes back at least in the 420s in January.
-
...FWIW as an independent taking this business more seriously if it wasn't for this site I find I-Stock a good site. Sorry for being a heretic!
It's not being a heretic, but a matter of how you see the site - a relatively new contributor with a small portfolio and 50 downloads - versus how others do who have seen the site do much, much better than it is doing today. When those losses look like an own goal, it's pretty tough to take.
Please understand it's not that being new doesn't entitle you to a view, but it does mean that you don't have any insight into why those negative views exist. What I do suggest you take to heart is that a lot of previous promises have been broken - promises to people who could become exclusive to get a grandfathered royalty rate as but one example.
-
As an Indy, I can entirely understand why an IS exclusive would want buyers to move from another site to IS. I hope that IS exclusives can understand why I would want buyers to move from a site that pays me 16% of a sale to a site that pays a higher percent - and yes, it is usually a higher total $ value too, even if the price the buyer pays might be a lot less.
For November IS made me 47 cents per download (ok, I'll round that 47.8 up to 48 even though it isn't clear that IS would do that) (that does also include PP, but seeing how I have no choice but be in the PP it makes sense to include it). IS is fast becoming one of the worst paying subs sites for me. That is why I want the buyers to migrate elsewhere. I think I could handle the competition from IS exclusives files if I also got the IS and PP buyers to go along with that competition.
At one time I was thinking about going exclusive, but their regular debilitating best match changes and broken promises put a squash to that. That was before all the site problems and importing of other collections really got going. I am mighty glad I am not an exclusive now trying to decide when to drop the crown and take a big hit or to try to hang on and keep scrabbling for a piece of the ever reducing pie.
I think IS is a bit of a thorn in the side of Getty, and the more other content they can put there (and pay non - exclusive royalty rates) as well as moving IS content upstream and downstream (and pay not exclusive royalty rates and no RC) the better as far as they are concerned. Their "new" communication is much like their "new" trust - not worth much.
-
488 today.
-
I'm sure the December thread is going to make depressing reading, compared to previous Decembers.
-
As an Indy, I can entirely understand why an IS exclusive would want buyers to move from another site to IS. I hope that IS exclusives can understand why I would want buyers to move from a site that pays me 16% of a sale to a site that pays a higher percent - and yes, it is usually a higher total $ value too, even if the price the buyer pays might be a lot less.
For November IS made me 47 cents per download (ok, I'll round that 47.8 up to 48 even though it isn't clear that IS would do that) (that does also include PP, but seeing how I have no choice but be in the PP it makes sense to include it). IS is fast becoming one of the worst paying subs sites for me. That is why I want the buyers to migrate elsewhere. I think I could handle the competition from IS exclusives files if I also got the IS and PP buyers to go along with that competition.
At one time I was thinking about going exclusive, but their regular debilitating best match changes and broken promises put a squash to that. That was before all the site problems and importing of other collections really got going. I am mighty glad I am not an exclusive now trying to decide when to drop the crown and take a big hit or to try to hang on and keep scrabbling for a piece of the ever reducing pie.
I think IS is a bit of a thorn in the side of Getty, and the more other content they can put there (and pay non - exclusive royalty rates) as well as moving IS content upstream and downstream (and pay not exclusive royalty rates and no RC) the better as far as they are concerned. Their "new" communication is much like their "new" trust - not worth much.
+1
As a Indy , and not a contributor on IS ( for hundreds of reasons ) the plunge of he agency is a big +. I believe the loyal buyers from IS are starting to realize that out there are similar agencies offering same image quality at more reasonable prices.
-
488 today.
What, tips for pizza delivery?
Or, hot rolls maybe ?
Jolly good show, isnt it ?
;)
-
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.
I'll assume that English is not your primary language?
"without formal training" does not equal "amateur is uneducated" as you are proposing. Someone without training can be very educated and experienced at something. Someone who studied something in college can be a complete Twit and clueless, who may have passed tests but remembered little and has little practical use for what he has retained.
Professions are the way that people make a living, activities outside of their workplace can be their true passions in life. It's called avocation, which doesn't mean uneducated or amateur.
-
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.
I'll assume that English is not your primary language?
"without formal training" does not equal "amateur is uneducated" as you are proposing. Someone without training can be very educated and experienced at something. Someone who studied something in college can be a complete Twit and clueless, who may have passed tests but remembered little and has little practical use for what he has retained.
Professions are the way that people make a living, activities outside of their workplace can be their true passions in life. It's called avocation, which doesn't mean uneducated or amateur.
Uneducated and autodidact are indeed not the same. That was just a 'typo'. I know the difference. But thanks anyway.
-
So if someone studied something, e.g. photography but then makes a living out of something else (anything) , but does what they studied, e.g. photography as a hobby, are they an amateur or professional?
-
I believe the loyal buyers from IS are starting to realize that out there are similar agencies offering same image quality at more reasonable prices.
As a supplier, do you think the prices and returns at some other places are 'reasonable'?
-
LOL Sue... I think its a combination of everything.
So if someone studied something, e.g. photography but then makes a living out of something else (anything) , but does what they studied, e.g. photography as a hobby, are they an amateur or professional?
-
How about "a professionally trained amateur!"
-
How about "a professionally trained amateur!"
;D
-
How about "a professionally trained amateur!"
Or an amateurly trained professional :D
-
Who cares about labels, anyway? What matters is the standard of your work. I've seen an art-college trained photographer whose work is nonsense and plenty of High Street photo studios whose work displayed in their windows is mediocre at best. Neither Edward Weston nor Sebastiao Salgado had formal photographic training.
-
I'm sure the December thread is going to make depressing reading, compared to previous Decembers.
It's already been started by KelvinJay (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350163) and it's pretty dire - except one exclusive wrote that his income was up $50K over 2011!! If that wasn't a typo, I'm guessing some Vetta Agency E+ images must have taken off for him.
-
I believe the loyal buyers from IS are starting to realize that out there are similar agencies offering same image quality at more reasonable prices.
As a supplier, do you think the prices and returns at some other places are 'reasonable'?
Yes, and on ALL other places the commission is not 15% and the upload limit 28 images/week ;)
-
I believe the loyal buyers from IS are starting to realize that out there are similar agencies offering same image quality at more reasonable prices.
As a supplier, do you think the prices and returns at some other places are 'reasonable'?
Yes, and on ALL other places the commission is not 15% and the upload limit 28 images/week ;)
No some places (SS) have commissions as low as 14%.
-
SS royalties are around 23-25%
-
SS royalties are around 23-25%
Not for everyone, a good friend of mine showed me their stats and they had around 33 cents per DL average and SS says it sells the average image for $2.36. That come's to 13.9% I think.
-
SS royalties are around 23-25%
Not for everyone, a good friend of mine showed me their stats and they had around 33 cents per DL average and SS says it sells the average image for $2.36. That come's to 13.9% I think.
Thats a wrong way of calculating royalties
-
SS royalties are around 23-25%
Not for everyone, a good friend of mine showed me their stats and they had around 33 cents per DL average and SS says it sells the average image for $2.36. That come's to 13.9% I think.
Thats a wrong way of calculating royalties
How would you do it then?
-
SS royalties are around 23-25%
Not for everyone, a good friend of mine showed me their stats and they had around 33 cents per DL average and SS says it sells the average image for $2.36. That come's to 13.9% I think.
Thats a wrong way of calculating royalties
How would you do it then?
Calculate the licence price and compare it with the royalty received. So if an EL is bought for 80 dollar and you get 28 the royalty is 35% but it differs per package etc. Some people calculated royalties are between 23-25% on SS
-
Or divide the total earnings in a month by the total downloads. In my case that gave 79c per dl in December. If the average sale price was $2.36 then my commission was 33.5%.
-
I still believe that doesnt add up either. You cant use an overall SS average sales price and take your monthly numbers to get a royalty percentage. If you take the 2.36 then you need to use the total amount SS paid contributors divided by the number of contribs and then you know the percentage SS pays.
-
Or divide the total earnings in a month by the total downloads. In my case that gave 79c per dl in December. If the average sale price was $2.36 then my commission was 33.5%.
That's what I did, 33 cents was the average DL which is why they had around 14%.
-
SS royalties are around 23-25%
Not for everyone, a good friend of mine showed me their stats and they had around 33 cents per DL average and SS says it sells the average image for $2.36. That come's to 13.9% I think.
You could equally argue that SS pays up to 130% royalty on subs. If someone bought a one month subscription and downloaded all their entitlement then the revenue to SS would equate to 32c per image. However SS might have to pay 38c royalty + 3c referral on each of those downloads.
Funny things 'stats'.
-
SS royalties are around 23-25%
Not for everyone, a good friend of mine showed me their stats and they had around 33 cents per DL average and SS says it sells the average image for $2.36. That come's to 13.9% I think.
You could equally argue that SS pays up to 130% royalty on subs. If someone bought a one month subscription and downloaded all their entitlement then the revenue to SS would equate to 32c per image. However SS might have to pay 38c royalty + 3c referral on each of those downloads.
Funny things 'stats'.
I don't think you can, SS never said that 100% of all subscription buyers download 100% of their possible subs, but they did say that the average license is $2.36. I take it you are saying that since you can't find the exact number you'll assume they are paying 130% royalty rate? I think we can get closer to the actual numbers than that. What would you say is the royalty rate for someone with an RPD of 33 cents at SS?
-
so if the ss average sale is 2,36
and my average income pr picture is 0,79
the percentage is about 29%
Thats much better than 16%
And income pr picture is rising at ss.
-
No some places (SS) have commissions as low as 14%.
Commissions "as low as 14%" may be possible for some - I don't know, but I'll take your word on that - but that's on some sales. Some sales will have considerably higher commission rates, bringing the average commission up.
On Istock, for someone at 15%, that's what they get on ALL their sales. That is not just on some sales or even an average. It's the whole thing. I am sure you aren't arguing that is fair.
-
You cant use the 2,36 average paid over 20m images and so many different licences and use it to calculate your own royalty. Doesnt work, its mathematically wrong. Its a fallacy.
-
What would you say is the royalty rate for someone with an RPD of 33 cents at SS?
If that is the case then that individual should be more concerned about the quality of their portfolio than their royalty percentage. Must be a reason why they are getting so few OD, EL and SOD sales. As with BT my own RPD at SS is more than double that.
Even a newbie at SS, starting on the basic 25c royalty, would probably average an RPD of at least 50c. Don't forget you've only got to earn $500 in total before you get promoted to 33c per sub sale anyway. The next step is $3K when the rate goes up to 36c. It is totally beyond me how anyone can have an average RPD of 33c at SS unless it happened to be their first month.
http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml (http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml)
-
No some places (SS) have commissions as low as 14%.
Commissions "as low as 14%" may be possible for some - I don't know, but I'll take your word on that - but that's on some sales. Some sales will have considerably higher commission rates, bringing the average commission up.
On Istock, for someone at 15%, that's what they get on ALL their sales. That is not just on some sales or even an average. It's the whole thing. I am sure you aren't arguing that is fair.
Nope neither is fair. If some sales get a higher % then others get a lower % to make the average.
You cant use the 2,36 average paid over 20m images and so many different licences and use it to calculate your own royalty. Doesnt work, its mathematically wrong. Its a fallacy.
Then what would you say is the royalty for someone with an RPD of 33 cents?
-
My RPD at SS is 55 cent, is that respectable?
-
No some places (SS) have commissions as low as 14%.
Commissions "as low as 14%" may be possible for some - I don't know, but I'll take your word on that - but that's on some sales. Some sales will have considerably higher commission rates, bringing the average commission up.
On Istock, for someone at 15%, that's what they get on ALL their sales. That is not just on some sales or even an average. It's the whole thing. I am sure you aren't arguing that is fair.
Nope neither is fair. If some sales get a higher % then others get a lower % to make the average.
You cant use the 2,36 average paid over 20m images and so many different licences and use it to calculate your own royalty. Doesnt work, its mathematically wrong. Its a fallacy.
Then what would you say is the royalty for someone with an RPD of 33 cents?
How should I know? That number tells me nothing. Like I said SS doesnt have percentages, they pay a fixed royalty depending on the licence. But the IPO reveiled that SS sold at an average per image, they sold so many images, and they paid a total of so many millions to about 33k contributors, and then you have an average royalty of 23-25% I believe.
-
Then what would you say is the royalty for someone with an RPD of 33 cents?
But nobody actually has 'an RPD of 33c' at SS do they __ so it's pointless asking the question.
Like I said you've only got to earn $500 to get that much for subs and any other single sale will push you above it.
-
My RPD at SS is 55 cent, is that respectable?
Surely that decision is only for you to make?
-
Then what would you say is the royalty for someone with an RPD of 33 cents?
But nobody actually has 'an RPD of 33c' at SS do they __ so it's pointless asking the question.
Like I said you've only got to earn $500 to get that much for subs and any other single sale will push you above it.
I know the "nobody" who has an RPD of 33 cents and have seen the stats. I agree in the future they will get more than 14% but that doesn't change what they are getting now.
-
Here from the IPO
Royalties are calculated using either a fixed dollar amount or a fixed percentage of revenue as described on our websites.
Royalties increased $10.8 million, or 47%
If 10.8m is an increase of 47% then the total paid royalties is 33.7m. They had a revenue of 120,2m. So the royalties paid is 28% based on those numbers
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm)
-
My RPD at SS is 55 cent, is that respectable?
Surely that decision is only for you to make?
I mean is that average, low or high?
-
Then what would you say is the royalty for someone with an RPD of 33 cents?
But nobody actually has 'an RPD of 33c' at SS do they __ so it's pointless asking the question.
Like I said you've only got to earn $500 to get that much for subs and any other single sale will push you above it.
I know the "nobody" who has an RPD of 33 cents and have seen the stats. I agree in the future they will get more than 14% but that doesn't change what they are getting now.
So I presume they're on the lowest subs tier with very few on demand EL's or SOD's? If so, it's easy to increase RPD by working hard for a few months. I don't have a problem with that, I wish all the sites did it like SS. When you get to the top tier, you stay there, unlike istock that have punished the people that have sold lots over the years. And they haven't moved the goalposts, unlike FT.
-
My RPD at SS is 55 cent, is that respectable?
Surely that decision is only for you to make?
I mean is that average, low or high?
I don't think there's any way for us to know that here. Only SS knows the average across all contributors. I would guestimate you are somewhere in the middle. Mine is .74 because I am on the highest tier, but you are probably well above people who are on the lowest tier, which I would imagine is the vast majority of contributors.
Also, as you climb the tiers, you will see that go up. Unfortunately, there is no tier above the one I have been on for years, so mine will not likely go up unless I see a big increase in OD and EL sales.
-
Is there some point to this p*33ing contest that I'm missing?
iStock's Alexa rank doesn't rise if SS's compensation of a new contributor is low; SS pays out very good monthly totals and as far as I know, any profits are ploughed back in to building the business further - not being siphoned off for private equity. Comparing royalty rates on dissimilar models doesn't really illuminate anything much.
It seems that this started because someone said the equivalent of "istock's royalties suck". For independents, they do - they used to be 20% and now they aren't (don't bring up Yuri - he's a factory). Whatever SS's royalties are, they haven't dropped.
If the message is that there are other sucky sites out there, not just iStock, how about we just take that as a given - it's clearly the case - so we can stop this distraction of discussing other sites' failings the minute any iStock failing is brought up.
-
what?
Istock is failing
Shutter is not.
-
I know the "nobody" who has an RPD of 33 cents and have seen the stats. I agree in the future they will get more than 14% but that doesn't change what they are getting now.
Where's the supporting data for your claimed "14%"?
Here's some facts for you. In 2011 SS sold 58.6M images ... which generated $120M in revenue ... which means a total revenue per sale of $2.05.
If your friend really does have an RPD of 33c then, dividing that number by $2.05, it would mean a percentage rate of 16.1%. You should tell your friend to pull his or her finger out because most of us are earning 30%+.
Here's the actual published data for you;
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1549346/000104746912005905/a2209364zs-1.htm)
-
when you calculate the commissions on SS why everybody take in account the subscription sales????? the subs. are fixed. take in account only OD, EL, S&O.. the commissions there is between 20-30%. In case of EL's the real commission can be even 50%.
-
when you calculate the commissions on SS why everybody take in account the subscription sales????? the subs. are fixed. take in account only OD, EL, S&O.. the commissions there is between 20-30%. In case of EL's the real commission can be even 50%.
41.2% :)
-
know the "nobody" who has an RPD of 33 cents and have seen the stats. I agree in the future they will get more than 14% but that doesn't change what they are getting now.
Your analysis is flawed. Let me try to explain where you went wrong, using my own sales results from last month.
Dividing my income from SS in December by the number of downloads, I get an average revenue of .63. Assuming SS brings in an average of $2.05 per sale, that means my royalty rate is 30%.
But that's not quite true. I had some referral income, which has nothing to do with my sales. Take that out and my average drops to .59, with a royalty rate of 28%.
Some of that income came from extended licenses. Remove that and I'm down to .57 per download. That's 27% of $2.05, but of course that $2.05 average includes extended licenses. So the SS revenue per download without extended licenses is somewhere below $2.05. But let's keep going.
I had single downloads. Take them out and I'm at .46. And I had on-demand downloads. Remove them and my average is .38. Not surprising since we've eliminated everything except subscription downloads and .38 is what I get for every one of those.
If I compare that .38 to Shutterstock's 2.05, I would be at an 18% royalty. But of course I'm not; that 2.05 includes an average number of on-demand and single and enhanced downloads. Granted, my average for those things isn't going to match the site's as a whole. Maybe I do better than average; maybe I do worse. But if all I had were subscription downloads, I would need to compare that to Shutterstock's average revenue per download just for their subscription customers. That will be a whole lot less than 2.05. Maybe half that, probably even less.
I'd be willing to bet that nobody gets a 14% royalty at SS, or the 18% I calculated. Different products have different margins, which gives them different royalty rates.
-
,
-
,
Wish I'd seen what you'd written before you deleted it.
I hope it was "Sorry everyone. I was talking a load of boll*cks, about a subject of which I know practically nothing. I apologise for wasting the time of those who do understand the issue and who have had to correct my misleading and erroneous posts".
-
,
Wish I'd seen what you'd written before you deleted it.
I hope it was "Sorry everyone. I was talking a load of boll*cks, about a subject of which I know practically nothing. I apologise for wasting the time of those who do understand the issue and who have had to correct my misleading and erroneous posts".
Not quite, I deleted it because I thought I'd let it go since it doesn't really matter to me but nothing I said was misleading or erroneous. I used to enjoy this forum, unfortunately not so much anymore. I guess I'm not alone since a lot of the really talented and helpful people that used to post here don't anymore. Oh well happy new year.
-
,
Wish I'd seen what you'd written before you deleted it.
I hope it was "Sorry everyone. I was talking a load of boll*cks, about a subject of which I know practically nothing. I apologise for wasting the time of those who do understand the issue and who have had to correct my misleading and erroneous posts".
I wish you would reply like that sometimes :)
-
,
Wish I'd seen what you'd written before you deleted it.
I hope it was "Sorry everyone. I was talking a load of boll*cks, about a subject of which I know practically nothing. I apologise for wasting the time of those who do understand the issue and who have had to correct my misleading and erroneous posts".
I wish you would reply like that sometimes :)
Prove me wrong on any point I've made and I'd be happy to do so. I'm always just trying to get to the truth.
-
,
Wish I'd seen what you'd written before you deleted it.
I hope it was "Sorry everyone. I was talking a load of boll*cks, about a subject of which I know practically nothing. I apologise for wasting the time of those who do understand the issue and who have had to correct my misleading and erroneous posts".
I wish you would reply like that sometimes :)
Prove me wrong on any point I've made and I'd be happy to do so. I'm always just trying to get to the truth.
With completely unnecessary rude comments. Another member gone. Serious dude, take a chill pill every now and then. Or dont post when you are hitting the sauce.
-
Boys ::)
<ducks>
-
Not quite, I deleted it because I thought I'd let it go since it doesn't really matter to me but nothing I said was misleading or erroneous. I used to enjoy this forum, unfortunately not so much anymore. I guess I'm not alone since a lot of the really talented and helpful people that used to post here don't anymore. Oh well happy new year.
Yes it was. Totally. You made up 'facts' in order to support your ridiculous hypothesis. I'm really sorry if you found being caught out to be 'not enjoyable' in your forum experience. Quite frankly, my own forum experience would be tremendously improved if people like you wouldn't spread ridiculous myth and nonsense, particularly regarding subjects of which they have no personal experience. It would also save me time.
What do you want in a 'forum' anyway? Why do you come to MSG? Do you want to discuss what is really going on in microstock or do you just want to spread your own misconceived theories without anybody challenging them? If so then MSG is probably not your natural home. Get your facts straight and talk about what you actually understand and you'll be just fine on MSG.
-
With completely unnecessary rude comments. Another member gone. Serious dude, take a chill pill every now and then. Or dont post when you are hitting the sauce.
To be honest mate I'm not at all bothered about people who just invent stuff, to support their bizzarre theories, choosing to 'disappear' when they get quite fairly challenged on them. It's for the best.
Cast your mind back and remember that our hapless contributor, who doesn't actually contribute to SS, was trying to claim that they paid as little as 14%. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong and they shouldn't be able to spread such lies on MSG. That's not what MSG is for IMHO.
-
With completely unnecessary rude comments. Another member gone. Serious dude, take a chill pill every now and then. Or dont post when you are hitting the sauce.
To be honest mate I'm not at all bothered about people who just invent stuff, to support their bizzarre theories, choosing to 'disappear' when they get quite fairly challenged on them. It's for the best.
Cast your mind back and remember that our hapless contributor, who doesn't actually contribute to SS, was trying to claim that they paid as little as 14%. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong and they shouldn't be able to spread such lies on MSG. That's not what MSG is for IMHO.
Yes, but we can do that with normal arguments, I think. We dont have to upset people in the process. And imo I dont think the OP meant to spread lies, he just seem confused.
-
Cast your mind back and remember that our hapless contributor, who doesn't actually contribute to SS, was trying to claim that they paid as little as 14%. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong and they shouldn't be able to spread such lies on MSG. That's not what MSG is for IMHO.
To quote Harlan Ellison, "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant." Here was a case of determined ignorance and misinformation. And eventually I think it's fair to lose patience and call ignorance what it is.
In any event, I won't be surprised if he returns under the same or another name. He just needs to lick his wounds a while first.
-
Sorry things seem to be getting out of hand lately and several members are leaving. This thread went wildly off topic when we began debating Shutterstock's royalties. I do agree with the folks who have taken the time to explain why they are much higher than 14%.
But I'm with JoAnn - I don't know why everything's turning into a pissing contest lately. Is it that people are extra sensitive during the holidays, or are the thumbs down arrows making people touchy? Is it too much for people when they see a post of theirs get a lot of -1 arrows?
-
Yes, but we can do that with normal arguments, I think. We dont have to upset people in the process. And imo I dont think the OP meant to spread lies, he just seem confused.
Well I'm really, really sorry but obviously I was highly upset by the inaccurate mis-information being spread by Traveler. I wouldn't say he was 'confused' either. I would say he didn't know the facts and was attempting, rather feebly, to support his own IS Exclusive agenda.
Funny things is ... I'll bet within a year or so he'll have given up his crown and will be asking us all about the benefits of SS. At least then he'll find out what SS really pays for himself.
-
With completely unnecessary rude comments. Another member gone. Serious dude, take a chill pill every now and then. Or dont post when you are hitting the sauce.
To be honest mate I'm not at all bothered about people who just invent stuff, to support their bizzarre theories, choosing to 'disappear' when they get quite fairly challenged on them. It's for the best.
Cast your mind back and remember that our hapless contributor, who doesn't actually contribute to SS, was trying to claim that they paid as little as 14%. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong and they shouldn't be able to spread such lies on MSG. That's not what MSG is for IMHO.
Yes, but we can do that with normal arguments, I think. We dont have to upset people in the process. And imo I dont think the OP meant to spread lies, he just seem confused.
yes confused for the 10th time
-
Yes, but we can do that with normal arguments, I think. We dont have to upset people in the process. And imo I dont think the OP meant to spread lies, he just seem confused.
Well I'm really, really sorry but obviously I was highly upset by the inaccurate mis-information being spread by Traveler. I wouldn't say he was 'confused' either. I would say he didn't know the facts and was attempting, rather feebly, to support his own IS Exclusive agenda.
Funny things is ... I'll bet within a year or so he'll have given up his crown and will be asking us all about the benefits of SS. At least then he'll find out what SS really pays for himself.
If I was doing travel photography, I would probably of gone exclusive with istock for RF and use the traditional sites for RM. traveler1116 might of been ignorant about SS but non-exclusives don't have all the facts about istock exclusivity. There's lots of contributors that I really respect and seem to be very savvy that are still istock exclusive. For some, using one site for RF is the sensible strategy.
I think it's a shame that some of the istock exclusives that used to use MSG have gone. I have found some of their posts interesting and informative. I've also had some interesting PM conversations with some of them. One of them was about travel photography and I was surprised how well travel photos sell with istock.
-
Everything sells well with iStock if you are an exclusive. Thats the problem.
The greenhouse effect so to speak.
or we can say... that istock pays a high price for having exclusives, and opposite:
The exclusives pay the highest price.
These days, as for NOW, when I look at shutterstock images, they so far surpas istock, both by relevancy and quality.
The buyers wont pay for old frames and dust and hear say in happy communities.
-
My RPD at SS is 55 cent, is that respectable?
Of course it isn't. You're celebrating the fact you get 55c per image? Maybe if you're a newcomer who, in normal real world circumstances would have no hope of earning anything from your images, 55c seems a lot, but for anyone who sells micro but also has a freelance career and is able to sustain that career, 55c is laughable.
-
55c is fine if you get a few thousand of them. If you want "non-laughable" returns of dozens or hundreds of dollars for every sale you shouldn't be in microstock, should you?
-
I actually think that iStock failure would be a good thing for the whole industry. It's one of the companies that took the commission levels to record lows, the discussion boards over there have a level of freedom similar to North Korea and they present to me a complete lack of communication with photographers.
So if a company like that fails and a company like Shutterstock or Dreamstime (just an example) grows it is a good thing. Maybe the next greedy *insult removed* that thinks about squeezing contributors like a lemon, will see it's not a good idea.
It could have just as well been the opposite and with Getty's support iStock could have succeeded. I think that would have been a much worst scenario.
I doubt we will see the day iStock changes their policies, so for all the exclusives I just wish you will as soon as possible drop the contract with iStock and start selling your work on other sites. You have other options.
-
I just wish you will as soon as possible drop the contract with iStock and start selling your work on other sites.
Of course the only fly in the ointment with this wish is that it's a lot harder to do for established exclusives, unless they are prepared for a year or two of financial hardship. I have 2nd hand experience of three people dropping exclusivity, 2 of them returned to IS exclusivity after 6 and 9 months respectively.
Their experience was an immediate drop of income at IS, dropping by approximately 75%. These were people on 35 and 40% at IS. They found the extra income at SS and other sites wasnegligible, compared with lost income from IS. Now it's obvious that someone starting on the bottom rung at SS is going to have a long hard climb to get a decent revenue stream, perhaps 2 years or more, and even then it's possible their income might not reach IS levels. The people in question had families and mortgages/rent to pay, had become used to a four figure weekly (dollar) income, that was decimated by giving up exclusivity. It ain't that easy! Everyone's experience is different, if you're only making, say, $200 a month at IS, it's a nice bit of pocket money but your family won't suffer if you give up on IS, that's great, if I was in that position, i'd be off like a shot, as would many others, but I know my income would take an almighty hit that would be unaffordable for me. The people who returned to IS exclusivity also lost out as their income didn't return to previous levels either, having received some sort of best match hit.
-
My RPD at SS is 55 cent, is that respectable?
Of course it isn't. You're celebrating the fact you get 55c per image? Maybe if you're a newcomer who, in normal real world circumstances would have no hope of earning anything from your images, 55c seems a lot, but for anyone who sells micro but also has a freelance career and is able to sustain that career, 55c is laughable.
I am not celebrating anything, I am just asking a question.
-
Why would you need to ask the question? Do you think it accurately reflects the true worth of your images? If 'yes' then it's respectable. If 'no', then it's not.
-
I just wish you will as soon as possible drop the contract with iStock and start selling your work on other sites.
Of course the only fly in the ointment with this wish is that it's a lot harder to do for established exclusives, unless they are prepared for a year or two of financial hardship. I have 2nd hand experience of three people dropping exclusivity, 2 of them returned to IS exclusivity after 6 and 9 months respectively.
Their experience was an immediate drop of income at IS, dropping by approximately 75%. These were people on 35 and 40% at IS. They found the extra income at SS and other sites wasnegligible, compared with lost income from IS. Now it's obvious that someone starting on the bottom rung at SS is going to have a long hard climb to get a decent revenue stream, perhaps 2 years or more, and even then it's possible their income might not reach IS levels. The people in question had families and mortgages/rent to pay, had become used to a four figure weekly (dollar) income, that was decimated by giving up exclusivity. It ain't that easy! Everyone's experience is different, if you're only making, say, $200 a month at IS, it's a nice bit of pocket money but your family won't suffer if you give up on IS, that's great, if I was in that position, i'd be off like a shot, as would many others, but I know my income would take an almighty hit that would be unaffordable for me. The people who returned to IS exclusivity also lost out as their income didn't return to previous levels either, having received some sort of best match hit.
Well, they better come up with a back up plan regardless, what if due to natural courses in the market microstock stops to deliver the returns? Or if IS might go bust in 2013?
-
Why would you need to ask the question? Do you think it accurately reflects the true worth of your images? If 'yes' then it's respectable. If 'no', then it's not.
I was just asking what my RPD was compared to others at SS. If it was low or high or whatever. You are asking me if I think prices in microstock a fair, well the pricing might be fair at some agencies but the royalties arent.
The word respectable was poorly chosen, I explained in a later post.
-
Well, they better come up with a back up plan regardless, what if due to natural courses in the market microstock stops to deliver the returns?
Most people do have back up plans, either returning to freelancing or design jobs, or setting a point in their IS earnings, below which they will give up IS exclusivity, and put as much effort into uploading at SS and any other agency as possible. The skilled people will usually do OK, it's the part-time hobbyists who may be hit hardest, but they are more easily able to give up completely.
Many industries have changed beyond recognition in the last decade or two, it's the way things are in a fast changing world, very few people can any longer feel truly secure in any industry, so microstock is no better or worse in that respect than any other job.
-
Well, they better come up with a back up plan regardless, what if due to natural courses in the market microstock stops to deliver the returns?
Most people do have back up plans, either returning to freelancing or design jobs, or setting a point in their IS earnings, below which they will give up IS exclusivity, and put as much effort into uploading at SS and any other agency as possible. The skilled people will usually do OK, it's the part-time hobbyists who may be hit hardest, but they are more easily able to give up completely.
Many industries have changed beyond recognition in the last decade or two, it's the way things are in a fast changing world, very few people can any longer feel truly secure in any industry, so microstock is no better or worse in that respect than any other job.
So why would people return to IS exclusive then? The previous poster just said they had to return to IS exl. Sounds like there was no back up plan, hence my comment.
-
So why would people return to IS exclusive then?
If only the world was as simple as you seem to think it is. They returned because it was their best option at the time. Giving up exclusivity was one potential backup plan that failed to deliver, they have returned to lick their wounds and to reconsider. The world isn't as black and white as you seem to believe.
-
So why would people return to IS exclusive then?
If only the world was as simple as you seem to think it is. They returned because it was their best option at the time. Giving up exclusivity was one potential backup plan that failed to deliver, they have returned to lick their wounds and to reconsider. The world isn't as black and white as you seem to believe.
You constantly make assumptions on what I seem to think and know.
So when their back up plan as you call leaving exclusivity is, failed and they went back to exclusivity, they dont have a back up plan any more. Hence my comment they better get a back up plan. We are going in circles and I keep disagreeing with you. So this is where this conversation ends for me. Cheers.
-
I know you don't have a lot of experience in the industry and your earnings are low, you have already stated this previously.
-
Why would you need to ask the question? Do you think it accurately reflects the true worth of your images? If 'yes' then it's respectable. If 'no', then it's not.
I was just asking what my RPD was compared to others at SS. If it was low or high or whatever. You are asking me if I think prices in microstock a fair, well the pricing might be fair at some agencies but the royalties arent.
The word respectable was poorly chosen, I explained in a later post.
It's below my RPD but I've been doing this since late 2006. If you really want to know how your RPD compares, why not do a poll?
-
Transferring a legacy microstock portfolio to another site is never going to be any sort of "backup" plan. Moving forward is always going to be about the what-next, your new work.
IS exclusives have missed the Shutterstock express and the smaller microstock sites are not worth bothering with (the time involved vs shooting new, more commercial, work). Unless you are a factory or starting again from the beginning.
For IS exclusives the first half of this year is going to be about how well E+ does at Getty. Meanwhile the MSG love affair with Shutterstock can only go in one direction from this point onwards anyhow. What goes up always comes down.
-
Yes, but we can do that with normal arguments, I think. We dont have to upset people in the process. And imo I dont think the OP meant to spread lies, he just seem confused.
Well I'm really, really sorry but obviously I was highly upset by the inaccurate mis-information being spread by Traveler. I wouldn't say he was 'confused' either. I would say he didn't know the facts and was attempting, rather feebly, to support his own IS Exclusive agenda.
Funny things is ... I'll bet within a year or so he'll have given up his crown and will be asking us all about the benefits of SS. At least then he'll find out what SS really pays for himself.
I agree with your arguments on the Shutterstock royalties Gostwyk but the nature in which they were served was unnecessarily rude. The forum would become rather nasty rather quickly if we were all to post in a similar manner. Please cool it down a bit.
-
Transferring a legacy microstock portfolio to another site is never going to be any sort of "backup" plan. Moving forward is always going to be about the what-next, your new work.
IS exclusives have missed the Shutterstock express and the smaller microstock sites are not worth bothering with (the time involved vs shooting new, more commercial, work). Unless you are a factory or starting again from the beginning.
For IS exclusives the first half of this year is going to be about how well E+ does at Getty. Meanwhile the MSG love affair with Shutterstock can only go in one direction from this point onwards anyhow. What goes up always comes down.
I like the old trading saying, the trend is your friend. SS is on an uptrend and that might last longer than people expect. I'm hoping the love affair with SS will last a few years but I'm aware that things can change very quickly. So I'll be working on ways to reduce the effect on my earnings if it all goes wrong with SS. Hopefully one day someone will come up with a good way for us all to sell direct.
-
IS exclusives have missed the Shutterstock express and the smaller microstock sites are not worth bothering with (the time involved vs shooting new, more commercial, work). Unless you are a factory or starting again from the beginning.
Yes, I think we are all trapped in the decisions we made some time ago - long ago, in my case. Independents can't go exclusive because their files are already buried in the iStock search, while exclusives are unlikely to make a big hit on SS because they lack a track record there. There will always be exceptions, of course, who would do well anywhere.
Fall-back plans need to involve something other than exploring different sites. Direct sales, art sales, gallery sales, studio work .... whatever.
-
IS exclusives have missed the Shutterstock express and the smaller microstock sites are not worth bothering with (the time involved vs shooting new, more commercial, work). Unless you are a factory or starting again from the beginning.
Yes, I think we are all trapped in the decisions we made some time ago - long ago, in my case. Independents can't go exclusive because their files are already buried in the iStock search, while exclusives are unlikely to make a big hit on SS because they lack a track record there. There will always be exceptions, of course, who would do well anywhere.
Fall-back plans need to involve something other than exploring different sites. Direct sales, art sales, gallery sales, studio work .... whatever.
I think thats a good sum up
-
501 today. :o
-
They don't care.
SearchFairy posted yesterday that they were going to tweak best match so that the newly ingested quasi-exclusive agency stuff wouldn't hog the top of searches - but it would take two weeks to code and test. Apart from it being surprising to me that they test anything, why would this tiny tweak take so long to code? I've seen weeks on iStock where the best match was bouncing like crazy inside one week; and another time when some eejit made the mistake of thinking it would be a great idea to promote certain people - only to have the search results majorly spammed, and when I pointed this out, it was changed to something more 'realistic' within a day.
Then after that, they're going to look at getting a better balance between old and new files. Will that take another two weeks?
Doesn't look like a site that cares about its buyers or contributors, where they go and what they do.
-
What I dont understand is, why they dont clean up their communication.
That would be relatively easy.
Like being a little proactive with an above perspective.
They could get rid of all the conspiracy theories, and they could become trustworthy.
But they dont, and never did.
So either they are utterly incompetent, at the level of high school kids, or they have the spin going exactly as they want.
I can understand a "divide and conquer" spin, but I cannot understand a downwards spiral spin.
It is characteristic, that their extremely sensored forums, compared to shutters not sensored forums, are so full of people complaining, whereas shutters are full of joyfull people.
Now, why is that? I just wonder.
Is it sheer mistrust?
Does censorship fuel mistrust.
Like USSRish?
-
When I look at the December '12 sales thread at IS, I see that the Alexa rank is very much reflecting the terrible crash of sales in the last months. It looks like they lost the first place definitely to SS and Fotolia is slowly overtaking as well. It looks like especially the last 3-4 months of 2012 was abnormally bad for traffic to IS. It decreased to 1/3 of what it was in previous months of 2012.
Do you think IS can recover from here?
-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
So thats how you come back from a ban? ROFLMAO !! How you can be in this business for 25 years and waste your time with comments like that is beyond my comprehension ;)
-
iStock made him do it. ;D
-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Welcome back. Bonne année.
-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Welcome back. Bonne année.
et une bonne et heureuse année à vous aussi. Agréable d'être de retour parmi la meute.
-
They don't care.
SearchFairy posted yesterday that they were going to tweak best match so that the newly ingested quasi-exclusive agency stuff wouldn't hog the top of searches - but it would take two weeks to code and test. Apart from it being surprising to me that they test anything, why would this tiny tweak take so long to code? I've seen weeks on iStock where the best match was bouncing like crazy inside one week; and another time when some eejit made the mistake of thinking it would be a great idea to promote certain people - only to have the search results majorly spammed, and when I pointed this out, it was changed to something more 'realistic' within a day.
Then after that, they're going to look at getting a better balance between old and new files. Will that take another two weeks?
Doesn't look like a site that cares about its buyers or contributors, where they go and what they do.
'Two weeks' can only mean that's when they plan to start work on it. I'd have thought it would only take a few minutes to dial down a single factor within the best match algorithm. TPTB obviously believe that Agency images, when highly visible at the top of the search order, make them more money. Whilst it is easy to calculate the value of those Agency sales it must be less obvious to evaluate how many other sales are being lost as customers exit stage-left, disgusted at all the high-priced images that clutter their search results. They come to microstock to avoid those prices, or at least that was the theory before Getty became involved.
Back to the Alexa ranking, it doesn't surprise me at all. You only have to read the 'How was your December?' thread on the IS forum to get an idea how dramatically sales and revenue must be falling. The only thing that does surprise is that IS appear totally unable to recognise the danger or take avoiding action __ like a deer caught in the headlights.
-
Sales and revenues ar NOT falling at all. They are on their way up. Take no notice of this unreliable Alexa ranking. The demise is just malicious wishful thinking thats all.
-
They don't care.
SearchFairy posted yesterday that they were going to tweak best match so that the newly ingested quasi-exclusive agency stuff wouldn't hog the top of searches - but it would take two weeks to code and test. Apart from it being surprising to me that they test anything, why would this tiny tweak take so long to code? I've seen weeks on iStock where the best match was bouncing like crazy inside one week; and another time when some eejit made the mistake of thinking it would be a great idea to promote certain people - only to have the search results majorly spammed, and when I pointed this out, it was changed to something more 'realistic' within a day.
Then after that, they're going to look at getting a better balance between old and new files. Will that take another two weeks?
Doesn't look like a site that cares about its buyers or contributors, where they go and what they do.
'Two weeks' can only mean that's when they plan to start work on it. I'd have thought it would only take a few minutes to dial down a single factor within the best match algorithm.
I'm only quoting SearchFairy:
We’re going to start with the problem of irrelevant Agency files often flooding the search results. To that end, the Search Team is building a new “dial” to wave my wand at. They need a few days to build it and a few days to test it out, so we hope to see this change on the site the week of Jan 14th. I hate promising delivery dates because what seems simple sometimes becomes complicated, but that is the timeframe we are shooting for.
With that change in place, it will be easier to evaluate the impact of other Best Match settings. The next broad area I want to take on is the impact of File Age. We turned some dials in mid-December, but now need to finesse it to get a better mix of older and newer files.
Whether we regard the postings of employees as being truthful or honest is another question. Which is worse - incompetence or dishonesty?
-
Sales and revenues ar NOT falling at all. They are on their way up. Take no notice of this unreliable Alexa ranking. The demise is just malicious wishful thinking thats all.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
-
^^ Classic ;D
-
I'm only quoting SearchFairy:
We’re going to start with the problem of irrelevant Agency files often flooding the search results. To that end, the Search Team is building a new “dial” to wave my wand at. They need a few days to build it and a few days to test it out, so we hope to see this change on the site the week of Jan 14th. I hate promising delivery dates because what seems simple sometimes becomes complicated, but that is the timeframe we are shooting for.
With that change in place, it will be easier to evaluate the impact of other Best Match settings. The next broad area I want to take on is the impact of File Age. We turned some dials in mid-December, but now need to finesse it to get a better mix of older and newer files.
Whether we regard the postings of employees as being truthful or honest is another question. Which is worse - incompetence or dishonesty?
Surely the issue SF is talking about is the hopelessly keyworded Agency images (or at least how they are being translated)? I don't read that she's saying the best match algorithm itself is being addressed __ unless they are attempting to automate the best match to filter out the dodgy Agency files.
-
Sales and revenues ar NOT falling at all. They are on their way up. Take no notice of this unreliable Alexa ranking. The demise is just malicious wishful thinking thats all.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ three times!
-
Sales and revenues ar NOT falling at all. They are on their way up. Take no notice of this unreliable Alexa ranking. The demise is just malicious wishful thinking thats all.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ three times!
So 9 x zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ? Thats R.E.M. sleep!
-
Maybe some web developer can inform us about whether or not it is difficult or risky to make alterations to a search algorithm. I don't know, but given the disastrous search "upgrades" we've seen at various sites I would rather see a degree of care and caution exercised in rolling out alterations.
-
looks like the Christmas season was heavy on rocks again ;D
-
Maybe some web developer can inform us about whether or not it is difficult or risky to make alterations to a search algorithm. I don't know, but given the disastrous search "upgrades" we've seen at various sites I would rather see a degree of care and caution exercised in rolling out alterations.
Hi Paul!
You know I have reached the conclusion that no matter what search algorithm or method. As long as agencies are constructing it just for short term profit or to save them from having to pay out too much commission, type FT, etc. then whats the point? you reach a certain level or ranking and as thanks you get way pushed back in the search instead of encouraged. How about that?
Alterations? well you can bet your bottom dollar these alterations will not benefit the indies. Although lately IS have indeed sold very well for me.
-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Welcome back. Bonne année.
et une bonne et heureuse année à vous aussi. Agréable d'être de retour parmi la meute.
My high school French is a bit rusty, buried as it is behind more than 20 years of attempts to learn Spanish, but I wanted to welcome you back Christian. Site was pretty tame without you :)
-
Surely the issue SF is talking about is the hopelessly keyworded Agency images (or at least how they are being translated)? I don't read that she's saying the best match algorithm itself is being addressed __ unless they are attempting to automate the best match to filter out the dodgy Agency files.
It is not clear that they know how the search works or even whether it is working properly. As evidenced by their various responses and statements since the best match dialogue began. It may additionally be that they have not yet defined or agreed what they want the best match to do. You cannot know whether a thing works unless you can clearly define exactly what it is supposed to do.
Perhaps it is too complicated or intricate. Perhaps the people who built the system have departed. On the Getty Employees Speak Out (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/getty-employees-speak-out/msg282746/#msg282746) thread:
"Management handled the integration with Getty Images very poorly and we lost a lot of domain knowledge as a direct result."
It may be that the search is working but that the fields which the search is built upon are not recording accurately. They seem still to be saying that nothing significant has changed since September and that the way in which views are calculated has not changed (but they are going to check - which is an admission that they do not know). And views may affect best match.
On the plus side. It is a positive thing that they have been prepared to admit their uncertainty.
-
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Welcome back. Bonne année.
et une bonne et heureuse année à vous aussi. Agréable d'être de retour parmi la meute.
My high school French is a bit rusty, buried as it is behind more than 20 years of attempts to learn Spanish, but I wanted to welcome you back Christian. Site was pretty tame without you :)
cheers Lisa! youre a true pro! nothing seems to shake your equiliberium! well some trollope must have pushed the report button on me? never mind it was well worth it.
heard from a friend of mine you have some sort of a heatwave in Fl?
all the best Chris.
-
You live in a state of denial ;)
-
You live in a state of denial ;)
Hmm __ denial is a river in Africa as far as our man in Sweden is concerned.
-
I'm only quoting SearchFairy:
We’re going to start with the problem of irrelevant Agency files often flooding the search results. To that end, the Search Team is building a new “dial” to wave my wand at. They need a few days to build it and a few days to test it out, so we hope to see this change on the site the week of Jan 14th. I hate promising delivery dates because what seems simple sometimes becomes complicated, but that is the timeframe we are shooting for.
With that change in place, it will be easier to evaluate the impact of other Best Match settings. The next broad area I want to take on is the impact of File Age. We turned some dials in mid-December, but now need to finesse it to get a better mix of older and newer files.
Whether we regard the postings of employees as being truthful or honest is another question. Which is worse - incompetence or dishonesty?
Surely the issue SF is talking about is the hopelessly keyworded Agency images (or at least how they are being translated)? I don't read that she's saying the best match algorithm itself is being addressed __ unless they are attempting to automate the best match to filter out the dodgy Agency files.
Och, who knows. She may well have got her doctorate in obfuscating from iStockU. Clearly what she wrote can be interpreted in more than one way.
-
You live in a state of denial ;)
Hmm __ denial is a river in Africa as far as our man in Sweden is concerned.
the problem is that the river starts in Africa and ends in Sweden ;D
-
You live in a state of denial ;)
Hmm __ denial is a river in Africa as far as our man in Sweden is concerned.
the problem is that the river starts in Africa and ends in Sweden ;D
Ok. Enough of the petty back and forth jabs.
-
I think it was just a bit of friendly banter. For me it was. Its ok though, thanks.
-
You live in a state of denial ;)
Hmm __ denial is a river in Africa as far as our man in Sweden is concerned.
the problem is that the river starts in Africa and ends in Sweden ;D
Ok. Enough of the petty back and forth jabs.
It's an old joke __ a play on words (denial = the Nile). No 'jabs' intended or delivered to anyone.
-
You live in a state of denial ;)
Hmm __ denial is a river in Africa as far as our man in Sweden is concerned.
the problem is that the river starts in Africa and ends in Sweden ;D
Ok. Enough of the petty back and forth jabs.
It's an old joke __ a play on words (denial = the Nile). No 'jabs' intended or delivered to anyone.
I agree! shall we get back to the ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ;D
-
An interesting analysis of iStock's traffic as at 8 December 2012:
http://www.statscrop.com/www/istockphoto.com
From the link above:
Istockphoto.com has 13 years old, it is ranked #625 in the world, a low rank means that this website gets lots of visitors. This site is worth $90,497,289 USD and advertising revenue is $17,286 USD per day. The average pages load time is 1.769 seconds, it is very fast. This site has a very good Pagernk(7/10), it has 569,100 visitors and 4,609,710 pageviews per day. Currently, this site needs more than 972.78 GB bandwidth per day, this month will needs more than 29.45 TB bandwidth. This site is Listed in DMOZ, Yahoo Directory. Its seo score is 90.5%. IP address is 74.113.152.32, and its server is hosted at Calgary, Canada. Last updated on Sat, 08 Dec 2012 07:27:19 GMT.
-
You live in a state of denial ;)
Hmm __ denial is a river in Africa as far as our man in Sweden is concerned.
the problem is that the river starts in Africa and ends in Sweden ;D
Ok. Enough of the petty back and forth jabs.
Its Ok Tyler. Just a bit of laugh, no harm meant. :)
-
I thought I'd catch up with the iStock December +2012 sales thread this morning and though it worth noting Sean Locke's report: (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350163&messageid=6811575)
"I don't even want to try and calculate this stuff anymore because it is too depressing.
Frankly, I'd prefer the December report and the yearly report split into two threads.
December 2012.
- Worst month of the year for $$ and DLs.
- 25% off $$ and 50% off downloads from December 2011.
- Worst month of the past 3 years for $$ and DLs.
- Have to go back to July 2009 for a worse month for $$$, September of 2005 for a worse month (barely) in DLs
2012
- $$$ drop 20% from 2011, DLs down 50%
Wow. "
I know this is only one contributor but he is (a) historically successful (b) actively contributing - I think he said about 2K in 2012 (c) has Vetta/Agency to prop up the $$ as DLs fall. I know he mentioned he was one of the ones who benefited from the royalty stasis move.
For me, the only question remaining is whether Getty/Carlyle wants to halt the slump at IS or if it's part of their transition plan to whatever future they see. The only reason I care at this point (other than empathy for those caught in the exclusivity trap) is that I make a fair bit at iStock in spite of their train wreck of a business and I'd like to go wherever those customers are migrating to
-
An interesting analysis of iStock's traffic as at 8 December 2012:
[url]http://www.statscrop.com/www/istockphoto.com[/url] ([url]http://www.statscrop.com/www/istockphoto.com[/url])
[snip]
Look at the 4 year Traffic Graph. Looks pretty much my my earnings chart.
-
I thought I'd catch up with the iStock December +2012 sales thread this morning and though it worth noting Sean Locke's report: ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350163&messageid=6811575[/url])
"I don't even want to try and calculate this stuff anymore because it is too depressing.
Frankly, I'd prefer the December report and the yearly report split into two threads.
December 2012.
- Worst month of the year for $$ and DLs.
- 25% off $$ and 50% off downloads from December 2011.
- Worst month of the past 3 years for $$ and DLs.
- Have to go back to July 2009 for a worse month for $$$, September of 2005 for a worse month (barely) in DLs
2012
- $$$ drop 20% from 2011, DLs down 50%
Wow. "
I know this is only one contributor but he is (a) historically successful (b) actively contributing - I think he said about 2K in 2012 (c) has Vetta/Agency to prop up the $$ as DLs fall. I know he mentioned he was one of the ones who benefited from the royalty stasis move.
For me, the only question remaining is whether Getty/Carlyle wants to halt the slump at IS or if it's part of their transition plan to whatever future they see. The only reason I care at this point (other than empathy for those caught in the exclusivity trap) is that I make a fair bit at iStock in spite of their train wreck of a business and I'd like to go wherever those customers are migrating to
That's the million dollar question. I tend to think it must be part of their transition plan. I just can't believe that they really are as stupid as they seem.
-
That's the million dollar question. I tend to think it must be part of their transition plan. I just can't believe that they really are as stupid as they seem.
I just can't think of any other explanation. It was painfully obvious what was likely to happen, to a business built on 'crowd-sourcing', when said business began systematically shafting said crowd over several years. (That's over and above the fact that they were shafting us to the hilt from the start anyway).
The only surprise to me was how long it actually took for the crowd to react. I guess there is a significant amount of inertia (or lag) built into the system with credits being bought in advance and large accounts being more difficult to have authorised to move elsewhere.
Of course the IS bean-counters can, at least to some degree, predict what sales are likely to be over the next few months from the credit packages being bought today. I'll bet it doesn't look good.
It does seem strange though, when so many hugely significant contributors are reporting sales to have fallen 50% in a year, that TPTB appear to be sitting on their hands and taking little or no action to address the issues.
I guess the medicine that would be necessary to bring the customers back (i.e. slashing prices, reducing 'collections' and increasing royalties) is just too painful for them to swallow. Unfortunately, without the medicine, they're just going to get sicker.
-
An interesting analysis of iStock's traffic as at 8 December 2012:
[url]http://www.statscrop.com/www/istockphoto.com[/url] ([url]http://www.statscrop.com/www/istockphoto.com[/url])
[snip]
Look at the 4 year Traffic Graph. Looks pretty much my my earnings chart.
The page views per user data are interesting, too. It appears that around the time they started pumping in dodgy agency files the page views per user halved - and that happened almost overnight.
-
Is there a correlation between the scam site and the drop in sales?
-
Continuous quick drop - 514
-
It is my suspicion that the Alexa ranking is very pertinent to dropping sales site wide at IS. I do not believe for one nano second that sales and revenue "are exactly as they predicted". Case in point is their sudden faux interest last month in improving communication with contributors, their long overdue lifting of the curtain to introduce key administrative players, their unabashedly shameful promotion to give to charity for increased sales, and their recent resurrection of "contributor trusted" JJRD. IMO, they are scared sh*tless and are obviously in panic mode.
-
Getty traffic has also dropped considerably over the last 2 years. And if you compare Getty traffic against iStock traffic it appears iStock has about 10 times the traffic of Getty at this point, even with the recent tanking of iStock's traffic.
So Getty's master plan is not sophisticated. It is simply to save Getty and they are flooding iStock with Getty content to hopefully capitalize on iStock's traffic to help Getty's sales. They are doing this for better or for worse and after they started this major offensive 3 months ago they are probably seeing the outcome is for the worse.
The question is do they try and reverse things at some point. My guess is the hard headed bean counters will just let their bets ride and end up driving iStock further into the ground. Usually corporates try and reverse bad decisions only after it's too late. Sad but true.
And all of the impact to the iStock contributors being seen at the moment is just casualties of war to them.
-
Continuous quick drop - 514
Its very good of you to keep us updated with latest rankings. Does you the world of good.
-
Getty traffic has also dropped considerably over the last 2 years. And if you compare Getty traffic against iStock traffic it appears iStock has about 10 times the traffic of Getty at this point, even with the recent tanking of iStock's traffic.
So Getty's master plan is not sophisticated. It is simply to save Getty and they are flooding iStock with Getty content to hopefully capitalize on iStock's traffic to help Getty's sales. They are doing this for better or for worse and after they started this major offensive 3 months ago they are probably seeing the outcome is for the worse.
The question is do they try and reverse things at some point. My guess is the hard headed bean counters will just let their bets ride and end up driving iStock further into the ground. Usually corporates try and reverse bad decisions only after it's too late. Sad but true.
And all of the impact to the iStock contributors being seen at the moment is just casualties of war to them.
Good analysis. Sadly I suspect your observations are spot on.
-
Getty has been tweaking UP the price points of microstock over the past few years. All of the nudging and pressing of higher prices appears to have had a negative affect on their client base resulting in buyers seeking less expensive images elsewhere. I think it was initially a good strategy but it may have backfired on them. Then there were all the site performance issues thrown in the middle of the plan. OOPS. Messing with pricing is a delicate dance and I think they have tripped over themselves and may be in an unstoppable downward spiral.
I also think they do not care too much about contributors. They have plenty of those and plenty of very marketable images. But so does the competition.
And now the question is how do they win back buyers. Or are they gone for good?
-
Flooding iStock with expensive Getty content is not going to help either brand very much, even if iStock does have 10x the traffic. Micro buyers will just be driven away and macro buyers would surely have gone to Getty anyway if that's what they wanted.
I find it hard to imagine the management can be so stupid. It's not as if there's a shortage of competitor sites.
But who knows? Corporations have done dumber things. And if that is the strategy, it looks as if we may be entering the death spiral.
Getty needs to see that IS and Getty are fundamentally different businesses and stop the cack-handed integration.
Prices on iStock need big cuts. Royalty rates need to be boosted to keep suppliers happy. There needs to be heavy investment in technology and advertising.
All bad for next quarter's results, but the only way to avert a death spiral. Perhaps Carlyle will be able to take a longer-term view than we've become accustomed to.
-
So Getty's master plan is not sophisticated. It is simply to save Getty and they are flooding iStock with Getty content to hopefully capitalize on iStock's traffic to help Getty's sales. They are doing this for better or for worse and after they started this major offensive 3 months ago they are probably seeing the outcome is for the worse.
Sadly, this does appear to be exactly what they are doing. And of course the outcome is that the istock buyers, who were looking for low to mid-priced stock are turned off by the high priced Getty content flooding the front of the searches and more of them jump ship.
Slightly OT, reading customer reactions to the cash payment option is very enlightening. That should either be scrapped, or they should make the credits worth $1 and lower the prices so that there is less sticker shock.
-
Flooding iStock with expensive Getty content is not going to help either brand very much, even if iStock does have 10x the traffic. Micro buyers will just be driven away and macro buyers would surely have gone to Getty anyway if that's what they wanted.
I find it hard to imagine the management can be so stupid. It's not as if there's a shortage of competitor sites.
But who knows? Corporations have done dumber things. And if that is the strategy, it looks as if we may be entering the death spiral.
Getty needs to see that IS and Getty are fundamentally different businesses and stop the cack-handed integration.
Prices on iStock need big cuts. Royalty rates need to be boosted to keep suppliers happy. There needs to be heavy investment in technology and advertising.
All bad for next quarter's results, but the only way to avert a death spiral. Perhaps Carlyle will be able to take a longer-term view than we've become accustomed to.
I agree 1000%. To me it is really a price issue and a major marketing effort to win back buyers with value and quality selection. Getty management are ffffn idiots.
-
Flooding iStock with expensive Getty content is not going to help either brand very much, even if iStock does have 10x the traffic. Micro buyers will just be driven away and macro buyers would surely have gone to Getty anyway if that's what they wanted.
I find it hard to imagine the management can be so stupid. It's not as if there's a shortage of competitor sites.
But who knows? Corporations have done dumber things. And if that is the strategy, it looks as if we may be entering the death spiral.
Getty needs to see that IS and Getty are fundamentally different businesses and stop the cack-handed integration.
Prices on iStock need big cuts. Royalty rates need to be boosted to keep suppliers happy. There needs to be heavy investment in technology and advertising.
All bad for next quarter's results, but the only way to avert a death spiral. Perhaps Carlyle will be able to take a longer-term view than we've become accustomed to.
I agree 1000%. To me it is really a price issue and a major marketing effort to win back buyers with value and quality selection. Getty management are ffffn idiots.
Exactly. I agree with both of you 100%.
-
Yes, of course flooding iStock with expensive Getty content doesn't help either brand. Its like trying to sell someone a Gucci bag who goes into K-Mart for a ruck sack. But the fact is they have done it already and it's clear to everyone that the site is flooded with Getty content. No doubt about that. So that confirms their greed and desperation is outweighing their sensibilities.
With Getty's traffic also falling to all time lows they are far more worried about Getty falling down the slippery slope such that they are willing to turn iStock into the sacrificial lamb if necessary in their act of desperation.
But when they started this offensive they probably didn't think it would kill iStock's traffic so quickly or at all. They probably figured, with the ability to search on iStock by price range and collection, the micro buyers would still get what they need whilst also being able to convert some of iStock's massive buyer traffic (which Getty is now lacking) into higher priced content buyers. A self fulfilling prophecy though as we have come to understand.
Surely it's all blowing up in their face. There is no doubt. If the economical micro stuff isn't selling as evidenced by the monthly stats threads on iStock, then you can be rest assured the more expensive Getty macro stuff definitely isn't selling in place of it. The buyers have simply packed up and left for a place that offers them content in their desired micro price range.
But as I said, Getty admins went into this with both feet and so far they haven't shown signs of trying to reverse the downward spiral they created. And as I said, my guess is they won't as I am sure it was a very senior decision maker who was behind all this and he/she will entrench the company with his/her decision saying that the offensive plan simply needs time to become successful followed by some words of wisdom to keep all the staff morale up like "you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs" as everyone starts worrying about their job security amidst iStock's ailing revenue.
The sad thing is I think the buyers have already said how they feel about their new macro content scheme by leaving. And the rest will become history.
What is also interesting is how in the past when they made bad decisions they were quick to reverse them back. But that's when iStock was more in control of its own fate. Now that the decisions are made by Getty, and their new partners who want to see profits increase ASAP, you won't find them backing out of major decisions so easily. They will sum the blood bath up as temporary growing pains. But in the end no growth. Just pain.
-
Getty could still be making pretty decent money off of the wholly owned content. Remember, they are making 60 to 85% more per sale than we are on this kind of material. Still, in the long run I think this is just delaying the inevitable big drop in revenue for them. First the independents lost out, then the exclusive contributors, and finally when there is nobody else to bleed dry then Getty will take the hit.
As with the cash sales now the buyers see how much stuff actually costs as opposed to monopoly money credits, imagine how painful it would be for sellers to see they made a $20 sale - but then only get $3 (or even for a 40% exclusive only $8)
I am guessing they still have a pretty big market share, but nowhere near what they used to, and they have run out of tricks and tweaks and happy words to keep it looking good.
-
With Getty's traffic also falling to all time lows they are far more worried about Getty falling down the slippery slope such that they are willing to turn iStock into the sacrificial lamb if necessary in their act of desperation.
I agree with all of your post but actually I'm pretty sure that Istock, at it's peak, represented a very significant chunk of Getty's entire turnover. Quite possibly as much as 30% and growing when most of the Getty empire was shrinking. I think they hitched themselves and their problems to their 'wonder-horse' thinking it was so strong it was almost unbreakable. Wrong. They broke it too and, short of rolling back the clock 4-5 years in terms of prices and royalties, it is now probably un-mendable.
-
Fully agreed.
-
Lisa, good point about the cash prices. Something caused the iStock cliff in September, and I don't think it was the broken zoom. I'd bet on the naked greedy cash prices being shoved under buyers' noses, causing panic attacks all round.
Far from encouraging thrifty buyers to buy cheaper credits instead, the cash prices dealt a deadly psychological blow. I know I nearly fainted when I saw them, and I'm on the side of the fence that might be expected to like them.
-
I know I nearly fainted when I saw them, and I'm on the side of the fence that might be expected to like them.
Holy cow! I see what you mean! I am used to seeing my cash prices, which start at $2 or $4 depending on if the image is P+. Just to get an idea what buyers are seeing, I searched "man" using best match and randomly clicked on images that showed up in the first page.
The first image, pretty standard looking yuri clone type image, has a starting price of $79! It's agency. Then the Vettas start at $60, and even the relatively modest E+ start at $19. I didn't realize even regular exclusive files now start at $7.
As a buyer who didn't really know what all those different tiny icons were supposed to mean, I would be completely freaked out if the first few images I clicked on started at $79 or $60 for an XS. And the low priced images are still way under represented in the first few pages of results.
When that Yuri clone image from LaFlor could be easily replaced by an actual Yuri image or another clone on another agency for $1-$3 base price, any cost conscious buyer would have to be nuts to stay at Istock.
-
It is my suspicion that the Alexa ranking is very pertinent to dropping sales site wide at IS. I do not believe for one nano second that sales and revenue "are exactly as they predicted". Case in point is their sudden faux interest last month in improving communication with contributors, their long overdue lifting of the curtain to introduce key administrative players, their unabashedly shameful promotion to give to charity for increased sales, and their recent resurrection of "contributor trusted" JJRD. IMO, they are scared sh*tless and are obviously in panic mode.
I think it's entirely possible that contributors could be in a tailspin while IS/Getty is still experiencing growth or meeting whatever their expectations are. Expectations could be X% growth. No growth. Or to not let sales drop by more than X%.
They could have seen a 5% increase in revenue but if contributors/content increased by 50% there probably isn't enough sales growth to keep up with the increase in content. Same pie with a lot more people taking a piece of it. Competition 101.
Contributors need to move beyond the whole best match, Image Magnifier, and other "fix it" distractions. There aren't enough sales to go around to please everybody. Simple as that.
The image magnifier is fixed. best match has been changed a few times. Did sales increase? Not from what I see. Every time they change the best match some will win some will lose. They are slowly fixing things and it doesn't seem to improve sales.
The problem is that they seem to be focused only on their numbers. Their revenue and profits. If contributors are dying, quitting, or moving to competitor sites, how long do they think this can keep going before it does affect their finances? It took years to get where we are. How long do they think it will take to reverse it?
For me it's time to start Plan B. My sales and growth have actually been very good there for 2012 but the trend is obvious. They're only doing small things in an attempt to pacify contributors and they don't see any urgency in contributor sales. I'm keeping my photo exclusive content there for now but for 2013 I'll be focusing my time elsewhere submitting video, prints, and other work. Until they commit a true effort to fixing the biggest problems, sales growth and contributor benefits, then I can only see money problems getting worse for contributors.
Funny thing is, they're losing their leverage. As long as contributors were making money they knew they could continue taking things away and we would deal with it because of the money. But what if the money dries up?
-
Holy cow! I see what you mean! I am used to seeing my cash prices, which start at $2 or $4 depending on if the image is P+. ...
Reading what you wrote made me go have a look as I realized I had no idea that a regular exclusive image had become so expensive - $7 to $48 (versus $4 to $34 for a Photo +). Compare that to a DT level 4 XS - about $7 (9 credits) but the largest size is insanely high at IS - $48 versus about $17 (19 credits)
Perhaps it was all about sticker shock not lack of zoom? Or just adding together too many small negatives. Site's not working quickly; searches are weird; no zoom - then you look at the prices and wonder why you're there...
-
Holy cow! I see what you mean! I am used to seeing my cash prices, which start at $2 or $4 depending on if the image is P+. ...
Reading what you wrote made me go have a look as I realized I had no idea that a regular exclusive image had become so expensive - $7 to $48 (versus $4 to $34 for a Photo +). Compare that to a DT level 4 XS - about $7 (9 credits) but the largest size is insanely high at IS - $48 versus about $17 (19 credits)
Perhaps it was all about sticker shock not lack of zoom? Or just adding together too many small negatives. Site's not working quickly; searches are weird; no zoom - then you look at the prices and wonder why you're there...
ROFLMAO !! Thats a nice reflection of the chain of events.
-
Slightly OT, reading customer reactions to the cash payment option is very enlightening. That should either be scrapped, or they should make the credits worth $1 and lower the prices so that there is less sticker shock.
It's even more of a shock in the UK, where you see the even-more-hiked-up prices then if you decide to follow on anyway, you then get the VAT added on.
We're used to seeing prices quoted including VAT, (or at the very least, the base price and the total price including VAT, on mainly B2B sites which might have some 'consumer' customers also) so that looks like a scam, even though it technically isn't. (The actual scam is in the hike over US$).
-
Slightly OT, reading customer reactions to the cash payment option is very enlightening. That should either be scrapped, or they should make the credits worth $1 and lower the prices so that there is less sticker shock.
It's even more of a shock in the UK, where you see the even-more-hiked-up prices then if you decide to follow on anyway, you then get the VAT added on.
We're used to seeing prices quoted including VAT, (or at the very least, the base price and the total price including VAT, on mainly B2B sites which might have some 'consumer' customers also) so that looks like a scam, even though it technically isn't. (The actual scam is in the hike over US$).
I can't see the prices in pounds from the US, but looking at current exchange rates, $7 to $48 should be about 4.40 - 30 pounds. What are the current UK prices?
One of the things I notice is that whereas I used to see a lot of overnight (my time; pacific time zone) sales from all the big agencies I no longer see that at iStock although I still do at SS (where about 60% of my sales are from outside the US). Perhaps the currency schemes Getty has been trying to make money on is another discouraging factor for non-US buyers?
-
Slightly OT, reading customer reactions to the cash payment option is very enlightening. That should either be scrapped, or they should make the credits worth $1 and lower the prices so that there is less sticker shock.
It's even more of a shock in the UK, where you see the even-more-hiked-up prices then if you decide to follow on anyway, you then get the VAT added on.
We're used to seeing prices quoted including VAT, (or at the very least, the base price and the total price including VAT, on mainly B2B sites which might have some 'consumer' customers also) so that looks like a scam, even though it technically isn't. (The actual scam is in the hike over US$).
I can't see the prices in pounds from the US, but looking at current exchange rates, $7 to $48 should be about 4.40 - 30 pounds. What are the current UK prices?
One of the things I notice is that whereas I used to see a lot of overnight (my time; pacific time zone) sales from all the big agencies I no longer see that at iStock although I still do at SS (where about 60% of my sales are from outside the US). Perhaps the currency schemes Getty has been trying to make money on is another discouraging factor for non-US buyers?
Strange that. I see the opposite sales from IS overnight but very little from SS, my nightime that is. It used to be the complete opposite and by a longshot.
-
I can't see the prices in pounds from the US, but looking at current exchange rates, $7 to $48 should be about 4.40 - 30 pounds. What are the current UK prices?
£1.50 for an XS indie file; £13.50 for an indy L file;
£5 for an XS Exclusive file; $17.75 for a L exc. file;
£90.50 for a L Vetta file; £103.25 for a L Agency file.
All of these plus 20% UK VAT.
-
Thanks for the numbers
$7 was for exclusive XS and $48 was for an XXXL file - L (exclusive) is $25
Yahoo says $25 should be about 15.60 pounds - 17.75 is a pretty hefty "fee".
-
Thanks for the numbers
$7 was for exclusive XS and $48 was for an XXXL file - L (exclusive) is $25
Yahoo says $25 should be about 15.60 pounds - 17.75 is a pretty hefty "fee".
So $48/£30 for an XXXL exclusive? In the UK it's £34.25
Here are the screendumps for an exclusive file then an indie file.
Remember that the price hike over the UK is NOT shared with the contributor, it's just raked off.
(http://www.lizworld.com/UK.jpg)
I can't access the US prices or I'd put them as an extra column on the right to compare, with a currency conversion rate.
-
Here ya go Liz. Feel free to incorporate it into your comparison if you want. :)
(http://www.pbase.com/lisafx/image/148239232/large.jpg)
-
Honestly, I would have thought that buyers who aren't into credits or subs or whatever would make up for any loss due to price visibility, but I guess it either isn't that much of an attraction, or it's too much shock.
-
Here's a chart (with the UK half from Liz)
-
Thanks, JoAnn - I'm busy getting my tax stuff ready to take to the accountant tomorrow. Nearly finished :)
-
I think buyers were/are shocked seeing prices in plain language. I've supported fair pricing and increases, but clearly we're well past the boundary. I think buyers simply know they can get what they need for less elsewhere. Prices are just too high now. With more and more usage online rather than for print materials, the quality differential isn't as important anymore, assuming there is still a differential. I think the quality gap has closed significantly thanks to the influx of poor quality Getty content and improved standards on other sites like SS. you can still find an awful lot of garbage on SS but same goes for iStock today too.
as an iStock exclusive, we're up the creek if things continue as is. but, it's too early to tell after the holidays. 2013 certainly hasn't begun in any favourable manner for exclusives, quite the opposite.
-
Honestly, I would have thought that buyers who aren't into credits or subs or whatever would make up for any loss due to price visibility, but I guess it either isn't that much of an attraction, or it's too much shock.
The 'visibility' of the price isn't really the issue __ the real problem is the price itself. It's the staggering number of price increases (without any rational explanation other than greed), compounded year on year, that finally broke the camel's back.
Put yourself in the position of being a loyal customer since 2004, the same time that you have been a contributor. When you started one of your Large images cost what ... about $1? Nowadays the minimum that I'd have to pay for the same Large image is probably $25. Lots of your other images cost way more than that.
Of course with the effect of 8-odd years inflation, rising costs, the need to encourage higher-quality shoots, etc, etc prices must increase. At 2x, 4x or even 10x nobody would probably have batted an eyelid, especially when we were starting from such a low base. There is a limit though and Istock have clearly overshot it by a country-mile, probably a couple of years back. How could they have been so utterly stupid? Now they're f*cked __ completely and forever. They could have been a contender.
-
One of the most disconcerting matters in all of this is that, in part, the fate of our future success on iStock (or lack of at this point) comes down to some celestial entity named "Search Fairy".
How can a self respecting contributor look one of their friends in the eye, when they ask how iStock is going, and reply "Well, you see, it all comes down to the Search Fairy".
What an insult to intelligence and next friends will be asking me if putting teeth under my pillow has helped my sales in any way and what my fortune teller has to say about all this.
If you really stop and think about the way iStock is running things at this point you almost have to question your sanity for continuing to take a serious approach when in fact they certainly aren't.
And so if the control of how content is displayed to buyers on the iStock web sites comes down to a fairy, then I can just imagine how much of a goat rope things really are.
-
^ 'goat rope'..had to Google that. good term
-
It's crazy to see the traffic rank go from 200 to 1000 in the last year. It is over!!!! Look at the reach dropped from .04 to .01 that is half as much buyers in that time. Shutterstock has replaced IS in a total arse kicking. I can't say I blame buyers. Istock owners did get 4 billion in cash out of the place. The carylse group must be pooping their pants about now. FT and DT will also pass them along with Yuris site.
RIP Istock!!!!!!!
-
It's crazy to see the traffic rank go from 200 to 1000 in the last year. It is over!!!! Look at the reach dropped from .02 to .01 that is half as much buyers in that time. Shutterstock has replaced IS in a total arse kicking. I can't say I blame buyers. Istock owners did get 4 billion in cash out of the place. The carylse group must be pooping their pants about now. FT and DT will also pass them along with Yuris site.
RIP Istock!!!!!!!
#ripistock
-
For the sake of history, in 2004 the sales prices were 50c, $1 and $1.50 for S, M and L (that was all the sizes then). Commissions were 10c, 20c and 30c ... and the return per file at iS was above what it is today.
-
It's crazy to see the traffic rank go from 200 to 1000 in the last year. It is over!!!! Look at the reach dropped from .02 to .01 that is half as much buyers in that time. Shutterstock has replaced IS in a total arse kicking. I can't say I blame buyers. Istock owners did get 4 billion in cash out of the place. The carylse group must be pooping their pants about now. FT and DT will also pass them along with Yuris site.
RIP Istock!!!!!!!
#ripistock
We've been there before;
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istockphoto-com-2000-2011-r-i-p/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istockphoto-com-2000-2011-r-i-p/)
-
It's crazy to see the traffic rank go from 200 to 1000 in the last year. It is over!!!! Look at the reach dropped from .02 to .01 that is half as much buyers in that time. Shutterstock has replaced IS in a total arse kicking. I can't say I blame buyers. Istock owners did get 4 billion in cash out of the place. The carylse group must be pooping their pants about now. FT and DT will also pass them along with Yuris site.
RIP Istock!!!!!!!
#ripistock
We've been there before;
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istockphoto-com-2000-2011-r-i-p/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istockphoto-com-2000-2011-r-i-p/[/url])
But history can be quite funny. Look what Vlad the Imp said back then:
The last update on iStock forums confirmed that they are one foot in the grave already.
I don't think so. They're moving upmarket and dumping a lot of amateur deadweight contributors. Look at the people who are making the most noise in the forums, non-exclusives and low selling amateurs mostly, making big noises about 'taking their clients with them when they leave'-yeah, right! They wish.
And look what happened since.
-
It's crazy to see the traffic rank go from 200 to 1000 in the last year. It is over!!!! Look at the reach dropped from .02 to .01 that is half as much buyers in that time. Shutterstock has replaced IS in a total arse kicking. I can't say I blame buyers. Istock owners did get 4 billion in cash out of the place. The carylse group must be pooping their pants about now. FT and DT will also pass them along with Yuris site.
RIP Istock!!!!!!!
#ripistock
We've been there before;
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istockphoto-com-2000-2011-r-i-p/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istockphoto-com-2000-2011-r-i-p/[/url])
I don't want to be the last one at the party that has to pay for the headstone.
-
But history can be quite funny. Look what Vlad the Imp said back then
Did I say that? Just proves that even the most intelligent get it wrong sometimes, ( better just add this for the benefit of those with an irony filter ;)) although I have to say I don't personally believe that IS's current position was brought about by a few people badmouthing them to their clients, but by a mixture of world economic downturn and crazy management decisions, too numerous to mention. I have to say I am still making enough to support a family and pay a fairly hefty mortgage, although I am back to freelancing far more seriously now, but I am definitely eyeing up the opposition and am already accepted ( but with my portfolio locked) at the main alternative site.
-
But history can be quite funny. Look what Vlad the Imp said back then:
Don't forget: "It's like a summer storm, it'll pass as quickly as it arrived."
-
iStock's traffic rank on Alexa yesterday hit a 2 year low when their rank fell to over 1,000. As late as October of last year they were still ranked at about 200. That is a massive drop in traffic when a site goes from the 200th position to over 1,000 in a matter of just a few months. That sounds like a total buyer exodus to me.
Even during the holiday season of December 2011 their rank never went above 600 and it also bounced back quickly the next month to around the 250 level come January 2012. But here we are in January 2013 and their rank is over 1,000!
Their official Alexa rank is 517 at the moment, but that is an average of 3 months and various other factors that don't really reflect what has happened in the last few weeks. But if the site visitor traffic stays the way it is now for the next 2 months, then their 3 month average ranking will go over 1,000 as well.
It is a dire situation. People on the IS forums are still talking about best match changes, hiding the $$ prices, and other tweaks. I don't think they get it, nor do I really see how any of that will make a lick of difference if buyers aren't searching on the site to begin with. The real question to iStock at this point should be "How are you going to bring the traffic back?". Personally I don't think they can. It's gone into free-fall already.
-
... am already accepted ( but with my portfolio locked) at the main alternative site.
So you've been able to upload your portfolio to SS, keyworded and ready to go without activating it, is that right? That's a huge time saver if that's possible for exclusive artists looking to jump from iStock if that's possible.
-
iStock's traffic rank on Alexa yesterday hit a 2 year low when their rank fell to over 1,000. As late as October of last year they were still ranked at about 200. That is a massive drop in traffic when a site goes from the 200th position to over 1,000 in a matter of just a few months. That sounds like a total exodus to me.
Even during the holiday season of December 2011 their rank never went above 600 and it also bounced back quickly the next month to around the 250 level come January 2012. But here we are in January 2013 and their rank is over 1,000!
Their official Alexa rank is 517 at the moment, but that is an average of 3 months and various other factors that don't really reflect what has happened in the last few weeks. But if the site visitor traffic stays the way it is now for the next 2 months, then their 3 month average ranking will go over 1,000 as well.
It is a dire situation. People on the IS forums are still talking about best match changes, hiding the $$ prices, and other tweaks. I don't think they get it, nor do I really see how any of that will make a lick of difference if buyers aren't searching on the site to begin with. The real question to iStock at this point should be "How are you going to bring the traffic back?". Personally I don't think they can. It's gone into free-fall already.
It's even worse when you consider that the 'contributor' part of Istock's traffic has probably remained comparatively unchanged. Not sure what proportion of total site traffic contributors might be though.
-
Does anyone know when exactly was the latest price rise on iStock? Last I knew an exclusive standard file was the same as a Photo+ non-exclusive. I wonder when the $7 XS price came in.
About vlad_the_imp... Isn't he Lobo? Is Lobo leaving iStock?
-
About vlad_the_imp... Isn't he Lobo? Is Lobo leaving iStock?
Lobo is pieman (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/8-minutes-record/msg281628/#msg281628). He doesn't have any portfolio as far as I know, so Vlad is some other lovely human :)
-
Pugh! 10 pages of this nonsense. I think we are getting hard up for topics?
-
Yes, they overdone the prices, they went too far. They went to midstock. The question is could midstock sell well?
The answer is yes. There's a still a very big gap among istock and getty or corbis RF prices. There's a difference between 20 or even 150 and 500, to say something. But, when I've said yes, now I must say "no", because there's another thing factoring in: competitor's prices.
Maybe istock thougth other sites would follow (from a distance) their price rises. Should the two or three big ones done so, there wouldn't be much difference in downloads.The only difference would be that everybody (exclusives, by selling more at istock, and indies by selling for more at their sites) would be making more money.
But, since other sites began to flourish on the shadow of istock's microstock original concept, competitor's selling argument number one has always been: "Hey, we are cheaper!", and now is clear that this won't change. Even worse, istock has its own "We are cheaper!" sites, TS and Photos.com. There are a lot of sites that lack the confidence in their product to raise prices, even a little bit, even leaving them a at distance from istock. One or two dit it very shyly years ago, but then stopped, even eventually rolled back. Istock has been always the only and one agency pushing this cart.
So, I never would say, as something has said here, that istock prices are ridiculous. Maybe they can be for people who shot pizzas and watermelons, but when you spent 1.000 or 2.000 dollars in models, locations, props etc for a session, istock prices come to me to respect my professionality and my work. But, yes, in context, they are not realistic; that's something that isock excutives already know.
-
Yes, they overdone the prices, they went too far. They went to midstock. The question is could midstock sell well?
The answer is yes. There's a still a very big gap among istock and getty or corbis RF prices. There's a difference between 20 or even 150 and 500, to say something. But, when I've said yes, now I must say "no", because there's another thing factoring in: competitor's prices.
Maybe istock thougth other sites would follow (from a distance) their price rises. Should the two or three big ones done so, there wouldn't be much difference in downloads.The only difference would be that everybody (exclusives, by selling more at istock, and indies by selling for more at their sites) would be making more money.
But, since other sites began to flourish on the shadow of istock's microstock original concept, competitor's selling argument number one has always been: "Hey, we are cheaper!", and now is clear that this won't change. Even worse, istock has its own "We are cheaper!" sites, TS and Photos.com. There are a lot of sites that lack the confidence in their product to raise prices, even a little bit, even leaving them a at distance from istock. One or two dit it very shyly years ago, but then stopped, even eventually rolled back. Istock has been always the only and one agency pushing this cart.
So, I never would say, as something has said here, that istock prices are ridiculous. Maybe they can be for people who shot pizzas and watermelons, but when you spent 1.000 or 2.000 dollars in models, locations, props etc for a session, istock prices come to me to respect my professionality and my work. But, yes, in context, they are not realistic; that's something that isock excutives already know.
It's supposed to be microstock. That's the market we're in and the 'microstock market' does not require $2K shoots __ ever.
If you choose to spend $2K on a microstock shoot (because you're so 'professional' and you want all this 'respect' stuff) and then can't make it pay at microstock prices then you are a fool. The true 'professional' know his market and adjusts his shoot budget accordingly.
Anyway, Istock/Getty didn't keep hiking their prices because they wanted to help you to do $2K shoots. They did it because they're a bunch of greedy f**ks.
Btw, I shoot pizzas. Lots of them. I buy them in cardboard boxes, stick them in the oven for 10 mins and then take a few shots before eating them. Delicious and financially rewarding. Pizzas are good things to shoot. They always turn up on time, are very cheap to work with, don't require hair or make-up (ok ... maybe a little olive oil dressing), are easy to 'direct' ... and often sell well. Most importantly they are profitable to shoot for microstock. You can keep your 'respect' __ I'll take the money all day long.
-
You should try watermelons too.
-
Forget watermelons or pizza, I wonder what it would cost to hire an iStock photographer throwing his crown against the wall for a model shoot?
Hopefully I can save cost by not having to hire any makeup, locations or props. Heck, if I time it right, maybe I can catch a few iStock togs doing it at the same time in unison. With the right DOF and HDR it might look creative enough to make it into Vetta.
I can see shots like this coming into high editorial demand for stock photo industry news articles come the beginning of spring.
Hopefully I can get the shots done on a reasonable budget as well to make the shoot cost affective. But hell, even if I can't, no matter, prices will be raised again by iStock soon enough to cover costs.
-
You should try watermelons too.
They're on my shopping list. Thanks for the great idea. I'm going to spend $2K on them for a really big 'professional' shoot.
-
You should try watermelons too.
They're on my shopping list. Thanks for the great idea. I'm going to spend $2K on them for a really big 'professional' shoot.
ROFLMAO!! ;D
-
You should try watermelons too.
They're on my shopping list. Thanks for the great idea. I'm going to spend $2K on them for a really big 'professional' shoot.
I bet you can do it. It's in the range of your capacities. And then, you'll be able to boast again about how many bags full with thousands and thousands of dollars you carry to your bank.
-
Pugh! 10 pages of this nonsense. I think we are getting hard up for topics?
Right, The fall of the site that created microstock is non-topic on microstockgroup. We should talk more about RM.
After all istock only had 75% market share as of 2010. Istock going from top 200 site to outside the top 1000 is not an important topic.
If you weren't exclusive from 2003-2011 you were crazy. Now you are crazy if you are exclusive from 2012- ??.
The only problem is the "not all my eggs in one basket" is going to collapse pricing. And the only differentiating factor will be pricing. Look out below!!!!!
-
Does anyone know when exactly was the latest price rise on iStock? Last I knew an exclusive standard file was the same as a Photo+ non-exclusive. I wonder when the $7 XS price came in.
Exclusive XS prices increased from 2 credits to 3 credits on 14 March 2012, and then to 4 credits on 1 May. I don’t find that price outrageous and wish other sites would charge more for their smallest sizes. (Or, put another way, I sure do like getting a minimum of about $2 on any sale.)
Also on 1 May 2012, S prices increased from 5 credits to 6 credits.
The last price change for XXXL prices was 17 Jan 2012, a decrease from 32 credits to 28 credits. Other regular exclusive prices have not changed from 2010, AFAIK (ignoring an increase and subsequent take-back of XXL prices).
Big price increases were in the E+ collection, where XS and S prices doubled during 2012, and the other sizes also saw large % increases. They probably felt they had to do that in preparation for pricing them so ridiculously high on GI.
-
Exclusive XS prices increased from 2 credits to 3 credits on 14 March 2012, and then to 4 credits on 1 May. I don’t find that price outrageous and wish other sites would charge more for their smallest sizes. (Or, put another way, I sure do like getting a minimum of about $2 on any sale.)
Also on 1 May 2012, S prices increased from 5 credits to 6 credits.
The last price change for XXXL prices was 17 Jan 2012, a decrease from 32 credits to 28 credits. Other regular exclusive prices have not changed from 2010, AFAIK (ignoring an increase and subsequent take-back of XXL prices).
Big price increases were in the E+ collection, where XS and S prices doubled during 2012, and the other sizes also saw large % increases. They probably felt they had to do that in preparation for pricing them so ridiculously high on GI.
Wow __ are you serious? You don't question the judgement of your agent distributor increasing the prices of some images ... by 100% ... in TWO stages over 6 weeks ... whilst in a major economic downturn ... when sales are clearly falling off a cliff ... and when their main competitor hasn't introduced a price increase for over 4 years? Huh? And you blame the competition for not following suit? You must be smoking the same exotic substances as your agent, sorry distributor.
Unfortunately your precious distributor isn't actually doing that much 'distributing' nowadays ... other than the 6000-odd images they're giving away for free by the millions on the Microsoft Office website anyway ... and which you don't even have any choice or control whatsoever about. I'm glad my main distributor, sorry, agent doesn't pull ridiculous stunts like that. I want my income to grow, like it does at SS, not be whittled away to nothing by the sh!t-for-brains idiots who are running, or more accurately destroying, Istock.
-
I sure do like getting a minimum of about $2 on any sale.
And here I was tickled pink to get a 9 cent sale!
-
Exclusive XS prices increased from 2 credits to 3 credits on 14 March 2012, and then to 4 credits on 1 May. I don’t find that price outrageous and wish other sites would charge more for their smallest sizes. (Or, put another way, I sure do like getting a minimum of about $2 on any sale.)
Wow __ are you serious? You don't question the judgement of your agent distributor increasing the prices of some images ... by 100% ... in TWO stages over 6 weeks ... whilst in a major economic downturn ... when sales are clearly falling off a cliff ... and when their main competitor hasn't introduced a price increase for over 4 years? Huh? And you blame the competition for not following suit? You must be smoking the same exotic substances as your agent, sorry distributor.
It wasn't just those two stages of price rises. I don't know when it happened or in how many stages, but somehow over the course of the year 2012 base prices for regular exclusive images went from $2 up to $7 because that's what it is now. That's a really big jump in one year, and combined with the much larger price jumps in other collections, it is obvious why buyers have a problem with it.
-
Exclusive XS prices increased from 2 credits to 3 credits on 14 March 2012, and then to 4 credits on 1 May. I don’t find that price outrageous and wish other sites would charge more for their smallest sizes. (Or, put another way, I sure do like getting a minimum of about $2 on any sale.)
Wow __ are you serious? You don't question the judgement of your agent distributor increasing the prices of some images ... by 100% ... in TWO stages over 6 weeks ... whilst in a major economic downturn ... when sales are clearly falling off a cliff ... and when their main competitor hasn't introduced a price increase for over 4 years? Huh? And you blame the competition for not following suit? You must be smoking the same exotic substances as your agent, sorry distributor.
It wasn't just those two stages of price rises. I don't know when it happened or in how many stages, but somehow over the course of the year 2012 base prices for regular exclusive images went from $2 up to $7 because that's what it is now. That's a really big jump in one year, and combined with the much larger price jumps in other collections, it is obvious why buyers have a problem with it.
Lisa, you might be getting credits and $s mixed up. I (try to) keep up with price changes, and my records show that the only price changes are the ones I mentioned.
Don't forget, until this past September, we saw prices in credits only, never $s. So what you are likely thinking of is 2 credits, and they are now 4 credits (which apparently is $7 at the cash price).
-
Wow __ are you serious? You don't question the judgement of your agent distributor increasing the prices of some images ... by 100% ... in TWO stages over 6 weeks ... whilst in a major economic downturn ... when sales are clearly falling off a cliff ... and when their main competitor hasn't introduced a price increase for over 4 years? Huh? And you blame the competition for not following suit? You must be smoking the same exotic substances as your agent, sorry distributor.
Of course I was just joking. I'm devastated that they raised prices, rather than cutting them like everyone else. I was so hoping they would give away my files for just pennies, and I cry every time I get a sale now.
I was so much happier every time I sold a file at XXXL size on DT or FT via a sub and got $0.38 or whatever it was. Yes, those were the days. Or the wonderful credit sales of $2 or even $3 sometimes on largest sizes. Gee, I really miss that.
I'm not an IS cheerleader; far from it, I pretty much hate them. But I am even more disgusted by the continuing lowering of prices and royalties on other sites. This won't end well for any of us, and if you think otherwise, it is you who must be smoking that exotic substance.
-
I sure do like getting a minimum of about $2 on any sale.
And here I was tickled pink to get a 9 cent sale!
I guess they must be paying exclusives 25 times as much as independents.
-
Pugh! 10 pages of this nonsense. I think we are getting hard up for topics?
Right, The fall of the site that created microstock is non-topic on microstockgroup. We should talk more about RM.
After all istock only had 75% market share as of 2010. Istock going from top 200 site to outside the top 1000 is not an important topic.
If you weren't exclusive from 2003-2011 you were crazy. Now you are crazy if you are exclusive from 2012- ??.
The only problem is the "not all my eggs in one basket" is going to collapse pricing. And the only differentiating factor will be pricing. Look out below!!!!!
Well put! just that as you see in this 11 page thread, the overwhelming majority havent grasped this fact. They are still bewildered and confused, their heads are still spinning around, joining every sheit agency they can lay their hands on thinking thats the answer.
-
But I am even more disgusted by the continuing lowering of prices and royalties on other sites.
Seriously __ which sites have lowered prices? Other than FT being forced to wind their neck back in on price increases by customer resistance, I'm not aware of any other instances. At least FT did have the wisdom to recognise the issue rather than 'doing an Istock' and ignoring their customers' concerns entirely.
-
But I am even more disgusted by the continuing lowering of prices and royalties on other sites.
Seriously __ which sites have lowered prices? Other than FT being forced to wind their neck back in on price increases by customer resistance, I'm not aware of any other instances. At least FT did have the wisdom to recognise the issue rather than 'doing an Istock' and ignoring their customers' concerns entirely.
Introducing subs is lowering prices and there are many agencies that did introduce subs and now these sales are the majority on these sites for example FL and DT.
-
But I am even more disgusted by the continuing lowering of prices and royalties on other sites.
Seriously __ which sites have lowered prices? Other than FT being forced to wind their neck back in on price increases by customer resistance, I'm not aware of any other instances. At least FT did have the wisdom to recognise the issue rather than 'doing an Istock' and ignoring their customers' concerns entirely.
Introducing subs is lowering prices and there are many agencies that did introduce subs and now these sales are the majority on these sites for example FL and DT.
Even with subs my RPD at DT is still over double and sometimes treble what it is at IS and my earnings are also over double what they are at IS. My RPD at fotolia is about the same as at IS as are the earnings.
-
Introducing subs is lowering prices and there are many agencies that did introduce subs and now these sales are the majority on these sites for example FL and DT.
'Introducing subs' can hardly be described as 'lowering prices' being as SS has been offering them since 2004.
Of course the worse paying sub site, by some margin, is actually Istock's PP. If any agency is guilty of erroding contributors' income by their own actions, it is most definitely Istock.
-
Introducing subs is lowering prices and there are many agencies that did introduce subs and now these sales are the majority on these sites for example FL and DT.
'Introducing subs' can hardly be described as 'lowering prices' being as SS has been offering them since 2004.
Of course the worse paying sub site, by some margin, is actually Istock's PP. If any agency is guilty of erroding contributors' income by their own actions, it is most definitely Istock.
I don't defend istock actually I stopped submitting and deleted my port there long time ago never liked their attitude and their cumbersome upload process nor I like Thinkstock , but introducing subs on a site that before only offered per image sale is lowering prices.
-
Of course if it, that's not opinion, that's a fact.
-
Lisa, you might be getting credits and $s mixed up. I (try to) keep up with price changes, and my records show that the only price changes are the ones I mentioned.
Don't forget, until this past September, we saw prices in credits only, never $s. So what you are likely thinking of is 2 credits, and they are now 4 credits (which apparently is $7 at the cash price).
I was only ever talking about $. Apparently your post, which I quoted, was talking about credits, not dollars and I misread it.
However, a buyer might very well have misread the situation similarly. Even if the shift from displaying in credits to displaying in dollars wasn't a price rise, it probably appeared to be one.
-
To be honest, after reading this thread, I can't understand why Istock/Getty has any defenders left.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1]
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1 (http://[url)[/url]
-
I sure do like getting a minimum of about $2 on any sale.
And here I was tickled pink to get a 9 cent sale!
I guess they must be paying exclusives 25 times as much as independents.
A regular XS exclusive file is 4 credits vs 1 credit for a non-exclusive. Add in the difference in royalty rates, and that is 8x as much for the average XS sale (more for higher royalty exclusives, a little less for base royalty exclusives).
-
But I am even more disgusted by the continuing lowering of prices and royalties on other sites.
Seriously __ which sites have lowered prices? Other than FT being forced to wind their neck back in on price increases by customer resistance, I'm not aware of any other instances. At least FT did have the wisdom to recognise the issue rather than 'doing an Istock' and ignoring their customers' concerns entirely.
You may be right that prices have not gone down. Sites followed iStock's lead in cutting commissions, but unfortunately did not follow with any price increases to try to make up the difference (in theory). But I do know that before I became exclusive my RPD was dropping across most other sites (SS excluded), as sub sales continued to become a larger part of the overall sales total.
-
Even with subs my RPD at DT is still over double and sometimes treble what it is at IS and my earnings are also over double what they are at IS. My RPD at fotolia is about the same as at IS as are the earnings.
My own experience is different. MY RPD at FT was 1/3 of what it was at DT, and DT's was about 20% below IS's (this is before the commission cuts, so I was earning 20%).
My current IS RPD is over 3x what it was at DT, and 5x more than at FT. And that's without a single Vetta or Agency file to skew the results.
-
Even with subs my RPD at DT is still over double and sometimes treble what it is at IS and my earnings are also over double what they are at IS. My RPD at fotolia is about the same as at IS as are the earnings.
My own experience is different. MY RPD at FT was 1/3 of what it was at DT, and DT's was about 20% below IS's (this is before the commission cuts, so I was earning 20%).
My current IS RPD is over 3x what it was at DT, and 5x more than at FT. And that's without a single Vetta or Agency file to skew the results.
Who cares about RPD? You can't pay your bills with 'RPD'. What's important is how much REVENUE your portfolio generates at any particular agency. For example my 'RPD' at DT is usually about 3x what it is at SS __ but SS generates about 5x more income. I'm getting the impression that RPD is an abbreviation for Ridiculous Pedantic Distraction.
-
Even with subs my RPD at DT is still over double and sometimes treble what it is at IS and my earnings are also over double what they are at IS. My RPD at fotolia is about the same as at IS as are the earnings.
My own experience is different. MY RPD at FT was 1/3 of what it was at DT, and DT's was about 20% below IS's (this is before the commission cuts, so I was earning 20%).
My current IS RPD is over 3x what it was at DT, and 5x more than at FT. And that's without a single Vetta or Agency file to skew the results.
Who cares about RPD? You can't pay your bills with 'RPD'. What's important is how much REVENUE your portfolio generates at any particular agency. For example my 'RPD' at DT is usually about 3x what it is at SS __ but SS generates about 5x more income. I'm getting the impression that RPD is an abbreviation for Ridiculous Pedantic Distraction.
I didn't bring RPD up, fotographer did. I was simply responding to his post.
I guess I shouldn't do that anymore.
-
.
-
... am already accepted ( but with my portfolio locked) at the main alternative site.
So you've been able to upload your portfolio to SS, keyworded and ready to go without activating it, is that right? That's a huge time saver if that's possible for exclusive artists looking to jump from iStock if that's possible.
YEah, you can prepare all images, and save them for when you are ready to hit the submit button. Advice is to release your port over a period of time, and not 1000 images in one go. Its better to spread and build your presence. At least that what I have been told. It keeps your name on top of the new search.
-
To be honest, after reading this thread, I can't understand why Istock/Getty has any defenders left.
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1]
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1 (http://[url=http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1)[/url]
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=350439&page=1)
Fixed the link
-
Thanks to KB for answering my question about the timing of the price rises. It is slightly reassuring to know the $7 price was introduced in May, I was afraid is was more recent. At least with this timing, this isn't a new shock about to further reduce my sales, it's most likely already built in to the system (probably in two stages, when the credits went up in May and when prices were shown in September).
Working with iStock is a rollercoaster of nerves now, and we seem to be on it daily. Every day something negative crops up. Short term I can increase my output, but long term I don't know what to do. Going non-exclusive would be only a temporary solution, as ALL of the companies involved (including Alamy) are "technology companies", whose only real long term interest is to debase copyright into practical nonexistence, so they can position themselves as search engines offering access to free content.
I think the only real solution is to work truly independently, with a handful of select others, in a niche market, our own agency. But on this one I'm struggling, haven't been able to find a vision to success, not yet anyway.
-
525 today!
The Google Drive controversy, this sudden drop could be the cause.
-
So you've been able to upload your portfolio to SS, keyworded and ready to go without activating it, is that right? That's a huge time saver if that's possible for exclusive artists looking to jump from iStock if that's possible.
Yes it is possible, and my original plan was to upload all my images, keeping them locked, until I was ready to open the floodgates. Someone pointed out that doing that, ie. keeping accepted images locked, gave them a bad best match position, so I have my original 10 there, locked, and haven't uploaded any more yet.
-
I was lucky enough to keep the 50% and sales for me are getting better and better there. They are now my 5th best earner. This January's earnings are on line to double last January's. Thank goodness as it is replacing some of the losses by IS and Fotolia.
-
525 today!
The Google Drive controversy, this sudden drop could be the cause.
Maybe smacks from H/F Greddy/IS find they own way how to drive more visits to be more pliant for sale to other greedy rapacious locust company/s.
Keep us on tracks with stats.
Finally we will maybe see on Alexa or other crawling sites jumps/downs because just from forum activity of dissatisfied contributors.
-
iStock is 537 today...
While its competitors who used to be below iS, are now...
123rf.com - 471
shutterstock.com - 336
SS's number used to be the rank of iS prior 2011.
-
iStock is 537 today...
While its competitors who used to be below iS, are now...
123rf.com - 471
shutterstock.com - 336
SS's number used to be the rank of iS prior 2011.
That's strange. Has something happened at Istock recently?
-
Ne, they meet expectations....
-
It's crazy to see the traffic rank go from 200 to 1000 in the last year. It is over!!!! Look at the reach dropped from .02 to .01 that is half as much buyers in that time. Shutterstock has replaced IS in a total arse kicking. I can't say I blame buyers. Istock owners did get 4 billion in cash out of the place. The carylse group must be pooping their pants about now. FT and DT will also pass them along with Yuris site.
RIP Istock!!!!!!!
#ripistock
We've been there before;
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istockphoto-com-2000-2011-r-i-p/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/istockphoto-com-2000-2011-r-i-p/[/url])
But history can be quite funny. Look what Vlad the Imp said back then:
The last update on iStock forums confirmed that they are one foot in the grave already.
I don't think so. They're moving upmarket and dumping a lot of amateur deadweight contributors. Look at the people who are making the most noise in the forums, non-exclusives and low selling amateurs mostly, making big noises about 'taking their clients with them when they leave'-yeah, right! They wish.
And look what happened since.
As a buyer I can remember quite a few comments like this on the MS & IS boards.
You tend not to forget those who do not value you over the dollars they are counting.
That will not change for most of us working in or with the companies who use MS on a regular basis, regarless where thier images may show up.
It is a small world after all and some of us work at very large international companies. We tend not to forget getting the wrong end of the stick on many levels.
-
So you've been able to upload your portfolio to SS, keyworded and ready to go without activating it, is that right? That's a huge time saver if that's possible for exclusive artists looking to jump from iStock if that's possible.
Yes it is possible, and my original plan was to upload all my images, keeping them locked, until I was ready to open the floodgates. Someone pointed out that doing that, ie. keeping accepted images locked, gave them a bad best match position, so I have my original 10 there, locked, and haven't uploaded any more yet.
Myth
-
616 now. :(
-
Fast drop - 745