Quote from: Cogent Marketing on November 16, 2011, 18:08

KelvinJay has site mailed me stating why my posting of the link to Site Analytics was removed from IS, see below:

Written by "kelvinjay" at 03:50 PM, November 16, 2011:

Hi,

I just moderate the forums and try to keep things on topic and civil. If doing either of those things seems to be beyond you, please feel free not to partake in the forums.

Cheers
Kelvin

Wow!  I doubt if we'll ever discover what was "off topic" or "uncivil" about your posts. Perhaps he meant "sycophantic and supine" rather than "on topic and civil". Some people have trouble expressing themselves clearly.

The funny thing is I only posted the link Nothing else, absolutely nothing. No comment, no sarky or terse remark nothing, just the link. That's it. Off topic and uncivil. It was posted in the October sales forum discussion - I thought it might be pertinent. Obviously not.

Personally, as long as the competitors don�t post how much they pay out to contributors every week, I will assume that the 1.9 Mio that istock pays out every week means that istock is still leading in royalty payouts. I am sure if anyone else came close to the 1 Mio Dollar mark, they would advertise it.

I don't know about that. The only one in the same league is SS and they might well be paying that or even more and still choose not to advertise it, They don't brag about what they are doing, they just get on with it.

How long ago was that iStock figure last stated? Is it still true?

Ultimately, what matters is the individual's earnings at the end of the month and global payout figures have nothing to do with that. You can put me and Yuri in the same pot and say that on average, the two of us earn many tens of thousands of dollars a month. It doesn't mean that I am making more than a pittance. It's just a statistic.

Quote from: lisafx on November 16, 2011, 18:20

FWIW, a designer friend of mine switched from IS to 123 a couple of years ago and loves them.  Hardly ever buys anywhere else.  They must be doing something right. 

It's not keywording. I've just done a few of my standard searches, and it's as badly spammed, (or ignorantly keyworded) as anywhere else.

Of course it's not keywording!

It's price!

It's kindness towards customers and contributors..

It is great commissions..

I always refer people to 123rf without even needing to use referral links because I know I will get a good return eventually..

I used to refer people to IS.. Back in when they were a community friendly company..

They screwed it so badly that putting our commission back to %20 wouldn't fix it!

I would need them to pay me %90 to gain the trust they lost!

I posted the link from above on the IS site - within ten minutes my forum privileges have been suspended! That has got to be a record, they were only re-introduced following a nine month ban last week and today was my first post, they said, and I quote
"The administration team at iStockphoto has locked your forum privileges.  Comments from iStockphoto Administrators (if any):"

Result. PS The discussion topic has been removed. I think their a little touchy. My post is below.

Seriously, are you suffering from Aspergers or a similar condition? Apart from being crassly insensitive it was an idiotic and provocative post with obvious repercussions which you didn't seem to have thought through. I found it particulary bizarre that you appear to be so proud of yourself that you even kept a little screen-shot of your post so you could show everyone how clever you (thought you) have been. Whatever.

lagereek Ha, ha, well I say this, you do have some guts, for sure. Anyway, you didnt care did you. Typical polite and wry answer from Sean though. Dont think he cares too much either, by the sound of it.

I don't really care, but I do have some sympathy for their loyal exclusives being treated like mushrooms. My port on IS is so small it is completely insignificant, me and my company (were) exclusive buyers from IS for about three years solid - I decided to change that about two years ago and now it's DT and SS (occasionally FT). It's their loss too, I actually approved over 1400 image downloads from IS in the first year we were with them (on behalf of clients), but frankly, now, they don't deserve my business and no longer get any.

Above all, nothing gives me (and a few in the office) greater pleasure than taking the **** out of Lobo.

PS- Have you noticed there are no locked threads in the month of November? New IS policy - simply remove the thread. Looks better to the uninitiated?
[/quote]

Yes! I have noticed and I think its absoloutely disgusting. This site, right now and in  everything they do, is just so bad, so unorthodox, etc. How on earth can even the most die-hard exclusive swallow all this garbage?  being treated like school-kids, etc?
I agree with you and I feel for them, years of work down the drain.

Could it be a method in the madness?  could it be that they actually want the site to deteriorate, before the migration, Getty/TS, will then step in as a golden saviour, etc? Im thinking out loud thats all.

If you compare Alexa and Compete, the graphs don't agree. Alexa shows iStock having a precipitous drop in page views, about a 50% fall within one month, at the end of 2010, followed by more-or-less flatlining ever since.

Compete, on the other hand, shows a more gradual three-month decline in unique visitors beginning only in May 2011, admittedly ending up even worse, more than 60% down from the peak.

Granted, these are not measuring the same parameter, but you might expect the general trends to agree.

To make matters more confusing, the Alexa graph of Reach ("Estimated percentage of global internet users who visit istockphoto.com") shows growth in the first quarter of 2011, followed by a sudden 20%-odd fall around the end of the quarter, but that only puts the numbers back to average 2010 levels.

I really don't know what to make of all this. None of these graphs bears the slightest resemblance to my sales on iStockphoto.

'
Hi!

well count yourself as a lucky boy because everyone I know at IS, exclusives and independants see these graphs mirrored in their sales.

Hi!

well count yourself as a lucky boy because everyone I know at IS, exclusives and independants see these graphs mirrored in their sales.

I guess i am a lucky one to cause my graph is different as well . But probably this has to do with the fact that I am more active now than 2009-2010.

This is bittersweet to be sure.

We were asking for buyers to shop elsewhere last year when iStock announced it's "earned credit" scheme - and now they have gone.

Ironic I guess.

By the way, Alexa collects data on browsing from computers which have the Alexa toolbar installed. How many of the world's computers have the toolbar. Less than half maybe?

A good many less than half, I would expect. But still enough to be a statistically valid sample.

...Personally, as long as the competitors don�t post how much they pay out to contributors every week, I will assume that the 1.9 Mio that istock pays out every week means that istock is still leading in royalty payouts...

I hope most of the exclusives still believe that as well. Judging by the lack of a mass dumping of the crowns, I'm assuming they do.

Personally, as long as the competitors don�t post how much they pay out to contributors every week, I will assume that the 1.9 Mio that istock pays out every week means that istock is still leading in royalty payouts. I am sure if anyone else came close to the 1 Mio Dollar mark, they would advertise it.

Of course. Remember that any "all free" sites have much more downloads than any ms (paying site). And when you need 10, 50, 100 or 300 "hits" or downloads at  subs B to match just one at PAYG A, things get complicated to calculate. No matter how much glee you get from selling at 0.30, any size.

Quote from: cobalt on November 16, 2011, 18:12

Personally, as long as the competitors don�t post how much they pay out to contributors every week, I will assume that the 1.9 Mio that istock pays out every week means that istock is still leading in royalty payouts. I am sure if anyone else came close to the 1 Mio Dollar mark, they would advertise it.

Of course. Remember that any "all free" sites have much more downloads than any ms (paying site). And when you need 10, 50, 100 or 300 "hits" or downloads at  subs B to match just one at PAYG A, things get complicated to calculate. No matter how much glee you get from selling at 0.30, any size.

Yep, Flickr wins!!!