Author Topic: iStock's Alexa Rank continues to drop (Read 52339 times)

incarno · « **Reply #75 on:** December 22, 2012, 12:10 »

Quote from: john_woodcock on December 22, 2012, 10:39

Quote
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I didn't tell you anything....

Quote
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...

john_woodcock · « **Reply #76 on:** December 22, 2012, 12:31 »

Great response. It would be even better if it made sense.

incarno · « **Reply #77 on:** December 22, 2012, 12:33 »

Quote from: john_woodcock on December 22, 2012, 12:31

Great response. It would be even better if it made sense.

I does make sense!

Pauws99 · « **Reply #78 on:** December 23, 2012, 04:25 »

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!

Jeffrey · « **Reply #79 on:** December 28, 2012, 12:31 »

Wow, significant drop I noticed today - 474!

Hope it comes back at least in the 420s in January.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #80 on:** December 28, 2012, 12:53 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 23, 2012, 04:25

...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.

pancaketom · « **Reply #81 on:** December 28, 2012, 13:26 »

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.

Jeffrey · « **Reply #82 on:** December 31, 2012, 08:10 »

488 today.

ShadySue · « **Reply #83 on:** December 31, 2012, 08:38 »

I'm sure the December thread is going to make depressing reading, compared to previous Decembers.

nicku · « **Reply #84 on:** December 31, 2012, 08:39 »

Quote from: pancaketom on December 28, 2012, 13:26

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.

enstoker · « **Reply #85 on:** December 31, 2012, 08:51 »

Quote from: Jeffrey on December 31, 2012, 08:10

488 today.

What, tips for pizza delivery?
Or, hot rolls maybe ?

Jolly good show, isnt it ?

RacePhoto · « **Reply #86 on:** December 31, 2012, 12:03 »

Quote from: Poncke on December 21, 2012, 11:55

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

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

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.

Poncke · « **Reply #87 on:** December 31, 2012, 12:27 »

Quote from: RacePhoto on December 31, 2012, 12:03

Quote from: Poncke on December 21, 2012, 11:55
In the real sense of the word an amateur is uneducated and a professional studied for his skills. At least thats what wiki says

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

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.

ShadySue · « **Reply #88 on:** December 31, 2012, 12:38 »

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?

ShadySue · « **Reply #89 on:** December 31, 2012, 12:40 »

Quote from: nicku on December 31, 2012, 08:39

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'?

Poncke · « **Reply #90 on:** December 31, 2012, 12:43 »

LOL Sue... I think its a combination of everything.

Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2012, 12:38

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?

Pixart · « **Reply #91 on:** December 31, 2012, 12:59 »

How about "a professionally trained amateur!"

ShadySue · « **Reply #92 on:** December 31, 2012, 14:10 »

Quote from: Pixart on December 31, 2012, 12:59

How about "a professionally trained amateur!"

fotografer · « **Reply #93 on:** December 31, 2012, 14:11 »

Quote from: Pixart on December 31, 2012, 12:59

How about "a professionally trained amateur!"

Or an amateurly trained professional

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #94 on:** December 31, 2012, 15:23 »

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.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #95 on:** December 31, 2012, 18:58 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2012, 08:38

I'm sure the December thread is going to make depressing reading, compared to previous Decembers.

It's already been started by KelvinJay 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.

nicku · « **Reply #96 on:** January 01, 2013, 07:05 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2012, 12:40

Quote from: nicku on December 31, 2012, 08:39
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

traveler1116 · « **Reply #97 on:** January 01, 2013, 10:22 »

Quote from: nicku on January 01, 2013, 07:05

Quote from: ShadySue on December 31, 2012, 12:40
Quote from: nicku on December 31, 2012, 08:39
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%.

Poncke · « **Reply #98 on:** January 01, 2013, 10:42 »

SS royalties are around 23-25%

traveler1116 · « **Reply #99 on:** January 01, 2013, 10:50 »

Quote from: Poncke on January 01, 2013, 10:42

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock's Alexa Rank continues to drop (Read 52339 times)

incarno

john_woodcock

incarno

Pauws99

Jeffrey

Jo Ann Snover

pancaketom

Jeffrey

ShadySue

nicku

enstoker

RacePhoto

Poncke

ShadySue

ShadySue

Poncke

Pixart

ShadySue

fotografer

BaldricksTrousers

Jo Ann Snover

nicku

traveler1116

Poncke

traveler1116

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors