Author Topic: iStock downtrend (Read 6754 times)

ShadySue · « **Reply #25 on:** June 27, 2013, 03:24 »

Quote from: pancaketom on June 26, 2013, 22:41

Quote from: EmberMike on June 26, 2013, 22:28

It's been a long time since I could say this, but I'm actually seeing an uptick in earnings at istock. Nothing solid enough to call a trend just yet, and possibly just the result of the reinstated 20% rate for vector folks, but there are signs of life. I'm uploading some of my new stuff, not all, and will be watching the stats in the coming months to see if things continue upward.

Back up to 20% could make a difference plus it could be they have a new merit based best match right now and they haven't changed it to suit their own purposes YET.

'merit based best match'

Have you checked out the examples I listed above? It's a similar story for many two or more word searches.

Monkeyman · « **Reply #26 on:** June 27, 2013, 04:33 »

And a while ago when people started reporting how bad multiple-word searches work, I remember iStock saying something like "well, most buyers only do one word searches anyway"... not a very uplifting thing to hear. And it can't be true either.

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** June 27, 2013, 04:37 »

Quote from: Monkeyman on June 27, 2013, 04:33

And a while ago when people started reporting how bad multiple-word searches work, I remember iStock saying something like "well, most buyers only do one word searches anyway"... not a very uplifting thing to hear. And it can't be true either.

I also found that very hard to believe. At the very least, surely a significant percentage modify their original search once they see the original one-word results.

fotografer · « **Reply #28 on:** June 27, 2013, 04:41 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 27, 2013, 04:37

Quote from: Monkeyman on June 27, 2013, 04:33
And a while ago when people started reporting how bad multiple-word searches work, I remember iStock saying something like "well, most buyers only do one word searches anyway"... not a very uplifting thing to hear. And it can't be true either.
I also found that very hard to believe. At the very least, surely a significant percentage modify their original search once they see the original one-word results.

At DT where they show the keywords used to find an image that is sold only about a third are searched for using just one word. I believe that only the original search is shown so a lot of those one word searches will have other words added to filter it down which we won't see.

ShadySue · « **Reply #29 on:** June 27, 2013, 04:52 »

It hardly matters what keywords people use if contributers continue to spam and inspectors aren't correcting keywords.

I know it's considereed invidious to call out individuals, but look at the keywords and description of the 65 meerkats (one will do!) which turn up for 'monkey two baby'. And the entire port of the person who was anxious because he was uploading his entire 16,000 portfolio and wanted more than 999 uploads per week. His titles, keywords and descriptions seem to be plucked out of thin air, yet they're still flying in.

Meanwhile, Keywordzilla said that 'copy space' was not relevant to this image:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25422734-male-chaffinch-fringilla-coelebs-on-branch.php

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #30 on:** June 27, 2013, 05:22 »

Ebeneezer and Florence, Ebeneezer and Florence ....

Oh dear, that's so 2004! Where's upsidedowndog when you need him?

ShadySue · « **Reply #31 on:** June 27, 2013, 05:56 »

Another depressing post over there, from juniorbeep:
"funny thing happened to me today. I am a contributer and quite a large purchaser of images usually from istock (although this is changing as prices increase and budgets reduce). But I had a phone call from Istock here in the UK asking me as a purchaser how I was finding the site etc. I told them I felt the prices were spiralling and the lady said "you wouldn't believe how many people have said that to me today"... She said she'd take note and feedback but actually seemed far more interested in pushing me towards Thinkstock... I wonder why? Ah something to do with the subscription (so guaranteed monthly income and terrible royalty rates paid out to contributers I'd imagine). ..."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354492&messageid=6906356

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #32 on:** June 27, 2013, 09:37 »

Good point. But it's hard for me not to upload there with payouts increasing. I really need the cash.

Quote from: sharpshot on June 26, 2013, 00:45

Personally, I can't think of a good reason for non-exclusives to keep uploading. It sends a message that we're willing to put up with commissions under 20% and deals like the Google one. The other big sites will have a great excuse to bring their commissions in line with istock. I'd much rather see buyers moving to other sites because they can't find what they want on istock and that wont happen with every non-exclusive uploading all they can. Not uploading might lose me some money and it might make absolutely no difference but I'm willing to take that risk, as there's really not much to lose. With the new upload limits and loss of P+, our earnings are going to get diluted and many of us will also get another commission cut.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #33 on:** June 27, 2013, 09:43 »

we all do man, I am sure I would do more if I continued uploading and perhaps I will because I am quite sick of the majority of the contributors that seem to don't care so I might join the show as well

yuliang11 · « **Reply #34 on:** June 27, 2013, 09:51 »

if this trend continues, i dont see anymore reasons to sell with istockphoto.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #35 on:** June 27, 2013, 09:58 »

Quote from: yuliang11 on June 27, 2013, 09:51

if this trend continues, i dont see anymore reasons to sell with istockphoto.

I have never stopped uploading in other agencies but checking SS stats I can see that if I haven't submitted on the last 12 months, I would be down 12% when I am down 72% at iStock

Imagenomad · « **Reply #36 on:** June 27, 2013, 11:55 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 27, 2013, 04:52

It hardly matters what keywords people use if contributers continue to spam and inspectors aren't correcting keywords.

I know it's considereed invidious to call out individuals, but look at the keywords and description of the 65 meerkats (one will do!) which turn up for 'monkey two baby'. And the entire port of the person who was anxious because he was uploading his entire 16,000 portfolio and wanted more than 999 uploads per week. His titles, keywords and descriptions seem to be plucked out of thin air, yet they're still flying in.

Meanwhile, Keywordzilla said that 'copy space' was not relevant to this image:
http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-25422734-male-chaffinch-fringilla-coelebs-on-branch.php

Hmmm. Out of interest, I did the same "monkey two baby" search as you because my port contains quite a few simians. The first of any of my images appears on page 4 and it's a mother and baby orangutan. In other words two apes.

I checked my keywords and "monkey" is nowhere to be found. I went into Admin to check iStock's controlled vocabulary and under "ape", it disambiguates to "ape" or "monkey" but "monkey" wasn't ticked.

So iStock's search engine may be contributing to this as much as keyword spam or wrong keywords being applied by contribs. I didn't check any of the other images' keywords.

ShadySue · « **Reply #37 on:** June 27, 2013, 11:59 »

Unfortunately the Italian language doesn't differentiate between monkey and ape, or at least that's the reason I was given officially for that bizarre DA choice.
Still, it's up to us to DA properly, and it doesn't excuse e.g. lemurs and even worse meerkats being labelled as monkeys.

Beppe Grillo · « **Reply #38 on:** June 27, 2013, 12:20 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 27, 2013, 11:59

Unfortunately the Italian language doesn't differentiate between monkey and ape, or at least that's the reason I was given officially for that bizarre DA choice.
Still, it's up to us to DA properly, and it doesn't excuse e.g. lemurs and even worse meerkats being labelled as monkeys.

Not completely exact:
"proscimmia" or "scimmia antropomorfa" = ape
"scimmia" = monkey

But yes it is mainly used by specialists (zoologists)

KB · « **Reply #39 on:** June 27, 2013, 12:28 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 27, 2013, 05:56

Another depressing post over there, from juniorbeep:
"funny thing happened to me today. I am a contributer and quite a large purchaser of images usually from istock (although this is changing as prices increase and budgets reduce). But I had a phone call from Istock here in the UK asking me as a purchaser how I was finding the site etc. I told them I felt the prices were spiralling and the lady said "you wouldn't believe how many people have said that to me today"... She said she'd take note and feedback but actually seemed far more interested in pushing me towards Thinkstock... I wonder why? Ah something to do with the subscription (so guaranteed monthly income and terrible royalty rates paid out to contributers I'd imagine). ..."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354492&messageid=6906356

And followup posts:
I have heard a similar story from other people, Getty ringing people known to be buyers and pushing Thinkstock over iStock.

I've heard similar stories. No big surprise

But no problem, since we've been assured that they are 2 different types of buyers.

sharpshot · « **Reply #40 on:** June 27, 2013, 12:42 »

They don't seem to of noticed that lots of their buyers have looked at Thinkstock but then decided that Shutterstock is better for them. As Shutterstock pay me more for subs and higher commissions for pay per download, I think that's a better option for buyers too.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #41 on:** June 27, 2013, 12:54 »

Quote from: sharpshot on June 27, 2013, 12:42

They don't seem to of noticed that lots of their buyers have looked at Thinkstock but then decided that Shutterstock is better for them. As Shutterstock pay me more for subs and higher commissions for pay per download, I think that's a better option for buyers too.

How do you know all this stuff. Which buyers? Is there a record of how many?
Come on ... put some attribution with these generalized assertions.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock downtrend (Read 6754 times)

ShadySue

Monkeyman

ShadySue

fotografer

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

ShadySue

Tryingmybest

luissantos84

yuliang11

luissantos84

Imagenomad

ShadySue

Beppe Grillo

KB

sharpshot

WarrenPrice

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors