MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: iStock fails to recover ground  (Read 64479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #75 on: November 18, 2011, 21:29 »
0
As a small fish, things seem pretty consistent, picking up this fall. It may be that iStockphoto is more suitable for small players like myself. 
I also have to wonder why somebody keeps pounding this drum, when they are really no longer a player in iStock, have no real interest in it, except to gripe constantly about it? Hard to understand. Maybe they should move on?


« Reply #76 on: November 18, 2011, 21:31 »
0
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?
Probably much less, but what's more, it is installed on irrelevant computers. Public PC's in netcafes for instance or with users so dumb they install it accidentally then don't know how to remove it. Not buyers in any case since they need all the screen real estate for content. The only reliable measurement could come from Google for those sites that have Google Analytics on but I'm sure Google won't release those numbers for free.

« Reply #77 on: November 18, 2011, 22:30 »
0
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?
Probably much less, but what's more, it is installed on irrelevant computers. Public PC's in netcafes for instance or with users so dumb they install it accidentally then don't know how to remove it. Not buyers in any case since they need all the screen real estate for content. The only reliable measurement could come from Google for those sites that have Google Analytics on but I'm sure Google won't release those numbers for free.

That is all well and good but then why do the stats look the way they do for the other micros? You mean istock users somehow have different computer use behaviour - somehow inherently different to SS users? SS buyers are active at public computers but IS buyers are not? We can argue the accuracy of the actual numbers perhaps but I don't think you can argue against the trending - how do you explain IS trending down and the other sites trending up? Can anyone seriously put forth an argument that IS need not be concerned that their trend is down and their competitors are trending up?

« Reply #78 on: November 18, 2011, 22:52 »
0
That is all well and good but then why do the stats look the way they do for the other micros? You mean istock users somehow have different computer use behaviour - somehow inherently different to SS users? SS buyers are active at public computers but IS buyers are not? We can argue the accuracy of the actual numbers perhaps but I don't think you can argue against the trending - how do you explain IS trending down and the other sites trending up? Can anyone seriously put forth an argument that IS need not be concerned that their trend is down and their competitors are trending up?
It will of course be the same for all agencies but my point was rather that Alexa's data are pretty irrelevant for sales on all sites. Why a trend might go down? Perhaps because they catch less random traffic (by Google Images for instance) by some non-sales related events. iStock is for instance losing ground on Google Images while SS and DT are very prominent on the first search page. For a site depending on views and clicks for ads at the contrary, Alexa might be very relevant as the toolbar-installers are a fair statistical sample of the general population. I don't feel that netcafe visitors are a fair sample of professionals going to buy a > 20$ specific product.

You can as well hypothesize that iStock did a good job averting useless random traffic that just eats resources watching their Google Analytics. I remember as a student walking in a very fancy Ferrari showroom in Brussels long ago with worn out sneakers. A very friendly salesman suggested me to leave the premises as apparently I hadn't pockets deep enough to buy one of those goodies. A good salesman has a nose for those things. I was just "random traffic" and he didn't want to waste his time.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2011, 22:58 by AttilaTheNun »

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #79 on: November 19, 2011, 00:31 »
0
wrong thread.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 00:33 by SNP »

« Reply #80 on: November 19, 2011, 08:43 »
0
You can as well hypothesize that iStock did a good job averting useless random traffic that just eats resources watching their Google Analytics.

Yes but does anybody seriously think this is what is actually happening? I mean we could hypothesies all day but nobody really believes that do they?

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #81 on: November 19, 2011, 09:14 »
0
You can as well hypothesize that iStock did a good job averting useless random traffic that just eats resources watching their Google Analytics.

Yes but does anybody seriously think this is what is actually happening? I mean we could hypothesies all day but nobody really believes that do they?

Yes, I can confirm from my own statistics that both buyers and contributors are useless random traffic in their opinion.

lisafx

« Reply #82 on: November 19, 2011, 11:49 »
0

I think I said before, but my sales are way up over last year as well, albeit my 100% growth years are over :). I think what we're seeing is pro-acting (high quality/quantity) exclusive istockers doing well and less active excl and non-exclusives suffering in varying degrees. Generalization I know, there are exceptions.

With respect to exclusives, you are probably right that the pros with high quality/quantity are managing to keep their heads above water.  But with respect to non-exclusives - pro or amateur, quality or quantity - NOTHING seems to make a difference. 

Sample searches support that.  Non-exclusive files are pushed waaaaay back in the searches.  Tempting to think Istock is "rewarding" its loyal exclusives.  However, considering how they've treated all their contributors the last year, it's more likely that they are trying to hide the erosion of their customer base both from the exclusive contributors, and also to the shareholders, using the best match to artificially inflate profits.

lagereek

« Reply #83 on: November 19, 2011, 12:34 »
0

I, for one, have felt inhibited for months about reporting my sales because they're not nearly as bad as those of most of the people posting. On the contrary. But it seems tasteless to be smug while others are mourning, and I'm sure many others feel that way too.


Speaking as someone whose Istock sales have dropped by about 2/3 over the past few months, I would urge anyone sitting on the sidelines and not reporting good sales to jump in.  My feelings won't be hurt, and I am sure most others won't either.  I believe most of us participating in the monthly stats threads are doing it to create as accurate a picture as possible of the sales trends on the various sites. Any information you can add is helpful in rounding out that picture.  Personally, I would be relieved to learn things aren't as dire at IS as I have feared.  :)

I think I said before, but my sales are way up over last year as well, albeit my 100% growth years are over :). I think what we're seeing is pro-acting (high quality/quantity) exclusive istockers doing well and less active excl and non-exclusives suffering in varying degrees. Generalization I know, there are exceptions.

You know I have been exclusive to the Getty-RM, ( came from Stones), since 1993,  working under private and studio name, I know exactly what exclusivity means. In the RM, it does work well, have never been any problems at all.
I remember some years ago when talking to the creative-director ( friend) at Getty office in London who laughingly talked about micro and how insane it was to even think of the word exclusivity in conjunction with internetbased sites such as micros, there were maybe all in all no more then 10 million files in micro at that time, today its more like 50 million, all in all.

Now you refer to the word pro, professional, pro-istockers, professional works both ways you know, the very least you can expect from a photo-agency is to meet a professional photographer in a professional way.
During the last two years, IS, have acted irresponsible, arrogant and in the most discusting ways against its contributors, even more so against YOU! their very own exclusives, with claw-backs, RCs, and what nots but YOU lot have got no option but to stand for it. We,  the others, dont. Thats the differance.

all the best.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2011, 12:39 by lagereek »

« Reply #84 on: November 19, 2011, 23:34 »
0
I've seen this report and I got to say I'm not surprised at all. Sales numbers are heading south for majority of IStockers ... the question is why we see such a drastic drop in traffic?  ???


Site analytic's most recent update - apologies if this is shown somewhere else...

IS in trouble.

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/istockphoto.com/

« Reply #85 on: November 20, 2011, 09:06 »
0
I've seen this report and I got to say I'm not surprised at all. Sales numbers are heading south for majority of IStockers ... the question is why we see such a drastic drop in traffic?  ???

My guess would be that buyers are just plain tired of:

1. rising prices
2. prices that change from week to week, depending on how much profit istock wants to realize for any given week
3. a poor search engine (and yes, there will be lots of cheerleader istock contributors jumping in here and saying how great the search engine is...of course, they have been immersed in it for years and know how it works, but buyers who don't have a lot of time to try and figure it out...not so much)
4. having images that they don't really want shoved in their face in the first few pages of the search

And contributors have gotten really tired of the same old bull$hit every day from them and they are focusing their efforts elsewhere.

I'm sure I've forgotten many other reasons...

« Reply #86 on: November 20, 2011, 11:57 »
0
That in itself says more than just the words. A couple of years back, when most people were regularly reporting improving sales, people who weren't dointg so well felt inhibited about posting their less than stellar stats.
How things change.

Yup, Sue, you certainly have a point there. But there may be yet another confounding factor, and that is the shabby treatment of contributors starting last year. I might have mentioned that I also feel inhibited under the circumstances about posting anything that might be mistaken for a woo-yay. In fact, I don't post there any more at all.



I think this may account for a big chunk of the lost traffic. Between the LoboNatrix and the Kelvinator, the forums are pretty much a wasteland. There are so many taboo subjects and so many ways to incur the wrath of the moderators that only a few people bother to post at all. The result is a few very bland boring posts and often long intervals where nothing is even posted in many of the forums. Most questions are ignored in forums like Editorial and Partnership and there's always some junior honorary moderator willing to blast anyone who asks a question that has come up before.

Imagine tens of thousands of contributors who used to sign in multiple times a day or stay on continuously that now pretty much completely ignore the site. Istock would do themselves a favor by promoting Lobo to night janitor IMO.

As for Istock however, they are probably pretty happy with their site. Like Kelly said, it is a well oiled machine. With the extra revenue form Agency and Edstock files, the Vetta collection and plus pricing, they are probably doing quite well. For example: the Agency collection has only been online for just over a year. One contributor, Rubberball has over 8400 dl's at prices from 50 to 250 dollars a crack. Considering EL's as well that is probably close to a million in gross revenue from a single Getty contributor in one year, with Getty collecting 80% of the take. I imagine what's her name in charge of Istock is probably looking for a nice Christmas bonus for her stellar performance.

« Reply #87 on: November 20, 2011, 12:12 »
0
I think this may account for a big chunk of the lost traffic. Between the LoboNatrix and the Kelvinator, the forums are pretty much a wasteland. There are so many taboo subjects and so many ways to incur the wrath of the moderators that only a few people bother to post at all. The result is a few very bland boring posts and often long intervals where nothing is even posted in many of the forums. Most questions are ignored in forums like Editorial and Partnership and there's always some junior honorary moderator willing to blast anyone who asks a question that has come up before.

Imagine tens of thousands of contributors who used to sign in multiple times a day or stay on continuously that now pretty much completely ignore the site. Istock would do themselves a favor by promoting Lobo to night janitor IMO.

As for Istock however, they are probably pretty happy with their site. Like Kelly said, it is a well oiled machine. With the extra revenue form Agency and Edstock files, the Vetta collection and plus pricing, they are probably doing quite well. For example: the Agency collection has only been online for just over a year. One contributor, Rubberball has over 8400 dl's at prices from 50 to 250 dollars a crack. Considering EL's as well that is probably close to a million in gross revenue from a single Getty contributor in one year, with Getty collecting 80% of the take. I imagine what's her name in charge of Istock is probably looking for a nice Christmas bonus for her stellar performance.

The traffic monitoring sites generally count unique visitors per given time period (not how many clicks each of them makes) so no, forum activity should make little or no difference to the stat's.

Rubberball might be doing OK but is that extra money to Istock or just money that would have been spent on work by another contributor anyway? It's funny how when Istock's traffic was rising everyone was happy that it proved how the business was growing strongly. Now that the traffic is falling off a cliff then some folk are trying to find every excuse under the sun to dismiss the figures.

lagereek

« Reply #88 on: November 20, 2011, 12:34 »
0
I've seen this report and I got to say I'm not surprised at all. Sales numbers are heading south for majority of IStockers ... the question is why we see such a drastic drop in traffic?  ???

My guess would be that buyers are just plain tired of:

1. rising prices
2. prices that change from week to week, depending on how much profit istock wants to realize for any given week
3. a poor search engine (and yes, there will be lots of cheerleader istock contributors jumping in here and saying how great the search engine is...of course, they have been immersed in it for years and know how it works, but buyers who don't have a lot of time to try and figure it out...not so much)
4. having images that they don't really want shoved in their face in the first few pages of the search

And contributors have gotten really tired of the same old bull$hit every day from them and they are focusing their efforts elsewhere.

I'm sure I've forgotten many other reasons...

Agree to all that!  plus, buyers dont care about who has taken the picture, buyers dont care if the artist behind the shot is exclusive or not, couldnt give a toss. BUT, buyers do care about paying twice as much for a shot only because its exclusive!
Then they will move on and find just as good/bad shot elsewhere.
This is Micro and most buyers are at the bottom of the pitts, scraping for a living and so are their clients. There is a reason why you buy micro: its cheap.

« Reply #89 on: November 20, 2011, 12:44 »
0

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #90 on: November 20, 2011, 12:50 »
0

« Reply #91 on: November 20, 2011, 12:52 »
0
Photos.com is also showing a nice upswing after the slow summer:

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/photos.com/

« Reply #92 on: November 20, 2011, 21:08 »
0
Thinkstock is up:

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/thinkstock.com/

 ;)


Because it is cheap - micros are about price - period. There is a little wriggle room to raise prices but not very much - low prices and high quantity of sales  - isn't that the argument everyone made to the pros who said micro was crap and destroying the profession - and we all said "I prefer my 200 sales at a dollar to your one sale at $100.". This is microstock - IS has forgotten that very basic concept and are now suffering the consequences. 

helix7

« Reply #93 on: November 20, 2011, 22:16 »
0
...This is microstock - IS has forgotten that very basic concept and are now suffering the consequences.

I'm sure they're suffering. No way they can't be with traffic as low as it seems. But I wonder how much they really are suffering, and if it's as bad as we might think. It's been fairly obvious for a while now that istock was moving towards some sort of midstock pricing model. Their prices are at the very high end of what could debatably still be considered microstock. Meanwhile they have Thinkstock serving the purpose of their lower end bulk offering. It stands to reason that the price increases and lower sales volume was all part of the plan.

It's possible that they haven't forgotten what microstock is about, and are just choosing to try a different pricing model and leaving microstock behind. I don't happen to agree with that position, if that is in fact what they are doing, but it does put things in a different perspective. In theory, things might not be so bad at istock HQ and they may just be planning to try and ride out the current slow-down in sales volume while slow and steady price increase up their profits.

« Reply #94 on: November 21, 2011, 01:38 »
0
...This is microstock - IS has forgotten that very basic concept and are now suffering the consequences.

I'm sure they're suffering. No way they can't be with traffic as low as it seems. But I wonder how much they really are suffering, and if it's as bad as we might think. It's been fairly obvious for a while now that istock was moving towards some sort of midstock pricing model. Their prices are at the very high end of what could debatably still be considered microstock. Meanwhile they have Thinkstock serving the purpose of their lower end bulk offering. It stands to reason that the price increases and lower sales volume was all part of the plan.

It's possible that they haven't forgotten what microstock is about, and are just choosing to try a different pricing model and leaving microstock behind. I don't happen to agree with that position, if that is in fact what they are doing, but it does put things in a different perspective. In theory, things might not be so bad at istock HQ and they may just be planning to try and ride out the current slow-down in sales volume while slow and steady price increase up their profits.

Yes I agree with you on this - but I also don't think there is much of a market where they are going - there are too many great images available at the micro level - and I am not sure they are at the mid-level of stock either - they are quite close to where the original Getty prices used to be. Or at least the Getty I used to buy at (in Asia I think they were somewhat cheaper).

« Reply #95 on: November 21, 2011, 01:42 »
0
Thinkstock is up:

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/thinkstock.com/

 ;)


That's a curious factoid, but my PP sales have been descending steadily towards the floor since I signed up in April, I think it was. The October sales now being reported are no better. So perhaps it all goes to show that these traffic graphs aren't very reliable.

« Reply #96 on: November 21, 2011, 01:50 »
0
It's possible that they haven't forgotten what microstock is about, and are just choosing to try a different pricing model and leaving microstock behind. I don't happen to agree with that position, if that is in fact what they are doing, but it does put things in a different perspective. In theory, things might not be so bad at istock HQ and they may just be planning to try and ride out the current slow-down in sales volume while slow and steady price increase up their profits.

There's some truth in that. In my own experience downloads have been more or less flat for a couple of years now but the money has risen very nicely, thank you.

I think Getty realised -- correctly -- when it bought iStock that there was a lot of potential pricing upside for the micro market leader. My worry is that they may be overreaching under the lash from H&F.

Internet markets are virtually frictionless and it's reasonable to imagine that at some point a critical mass of buyers will have had enough and will desert in numbers huge enough to crash the business.

There's also another concern, that true market leadership requires the most customers and the most widgets sold. By raising prices and reducing the customer base, you're sacrificing the marketplace buzz and conceding it to competitors -- in this case, apparently Shutterstock. No doubt Aston Martin makes a tidy little profit, but it can't touch Toyota.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 01:52 by RapidEye »

« Reply #97 on: November 21, 2011, 01:59 »
0
Thinkstock is up:

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/thinkstock.com/

 ;)


That's a curious factoid, but my PP sales have been descending steadily towards the floor since I signed up in April, I think it was. The October sales now being reported are no better. So perhaps it all goes to show that these traffic graphs aren't very reliable.


There's a warning on that graph saying that the sample numbers are low which makes it less accurate. What I find odd is the Photos.com is way ahead of TS, though most of the sales come from TS, and traffic is so far below BS, though it consistenly provides me with between two and five times as much income as BS.

« Reply #98 on: November 21, 2011, 02:51 »
0
The correct url for thinkstock is thinkstockphotos.com.

Thinkstock.com is just a pointer. The traffic is higher for thinkstockphotos.com but it also has taken a big drop like Istock.

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/thinkstockphotos.com/

My pure speculation on this thread topic is that Istock is building up the V/A collections to be the only midstock agency and at some point all of the main collection will be mirrored at Thinkstock to try and compete with Shutterstock for the micro market. The cream is being separated from the milk.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2011, 02:57 by retrorocket »

« Reply #99 on: November 21, 2011, 09:12 »
0
Thanks for that! i really was looking at the wrong url all the time.

So this shows the same decline being reported in the pp threads.

cheers

jasmin


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
2792 Views
Last post February 08, 2012, 06:00
by mtkang
7 Replies
3773 Views
Last post January 29, 2013, 07:47
by EmberMike
41 Replies
14620 Views
Last post July 21, 2015, 11:56
by madman
9 Replies
11167 Views
Last post August 07, 2018, 16:28
by sergeherbiet
12 Replies
8886 Views
Last post January 08, 2020, 03:59
by amabu

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors