Author Topic: iStock fails to recover ground (Read 73576 times)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #125 on:** November 22, 2011, 06:34 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 22, 2011, 05:54

Because istock is a pay as you go site with high prices, SS is a subscription site with much lower prices. So even with less traffic, istock still makes more money.

Remember traffic is number of visitors not number of downloads or number of visits, so one visitor to SS could mean one monthly credit package download worth a few hundred dollars, while a visit to iS might mean a 10 credit bundle. The unique visitors to each site don't translate into any meaningful info about earnings between sites.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #126 on:** November 22, 2011, 06:51 »

Quote from: michealo on November 22, 2011, 06:03

Quote from: Herg on November 22, 2011, 05:50
If IS are doing so bad, how come they are ranking close to SS on this ratings list tier at 5.6 ? I don't get it.

The intervals in the survey aren't even so it's not a linear comparison

over 6 could in fact be twice between 5 and 6

and IS includes exclusive and none exclusive, one could argue that for the sake of comparison ISX and ISNX should be separate

I PMed Leaf with that suggestion too

As an Exclusive, I've never voted in the poll - doesn't seem meaningful to me when I have only one site that's relevant. Perhaps I should do...

cobalt · « **Reply #127 on:** November 22, 2011, 08:16 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 22, 2011, 06:34

Quote from: cobalt on November 22, 2011, 05:54
Because istock is a pay as you go site with high prices, SS is a subscription site with much lower prices. So even with less traffic, istock still makes more money.

Remember traffic is number of visitors not number of downloads or number of visits, so one visitor to SS could mean one monthly credit package download worth a few hundred dollars, while a visit to iS might mean a 10 credit bundle. The unique visitors to each site don't translate into any meaningful info about earnings between sites.

I know, but for practical purposes I am assuming that most traffic comes from people who go to the site to find an image. Surely that must be where the majority of traffic comes from?

istock also sells huge credit packs to their corporate (getty) customers. At the microstockexpo, I met a lady from getty who said, she was just starting to sell the new 5000 credit packs to her clients.

gostwyck · « **Reply #128 on:** November 22, 2011, 09:50 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 22, 2011, 05:54

Because istock is a pay as you go site with high prices, SS is a subscription site with much lower prices. So even with less traffic, istock still makes more money.

SS is not just 'a subscription site' and hasn't been for some time. OD and EL sales have been growing strongly for the last couple of years and now make up nearly 50% of my total earnings at SS. Last month my OD/EL sales alone at SS were 77% of my total earnings at Istock (and at a far higher average commission per sale).

I think you're probably right and Istock is still making more money than SS but, with the way the industry is changing, I'm not sure for how much longer that will continue.

cobalt · « **Reply #129 on:** November 22, 2011, 10:32 »

O, that is interesting to hear. I have read that they are offering pay as you go, but I thought that 90% would still come from subscriptions. This must be a major headache for istock.

So it is now down to the exclusive collections, Vetta or the special collections from getty (hulton archive, csa etc...) as a USP.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #130 on:** November 22, 2011, 10:49 »

gostwyk's numbers are similar to mine. This month so far the subscription $$ are 41% of my total at SS

helix7 · « **Reply #131 on:** November 22, 2011, 11:13 »

^^ Same here. 50% of my SS earnings come from sub sales.

rubyroo · « **Reply #132 on:** November 22, 2011, 11:26 »

I've never looked at my SS numbers from that perspective. Very interesting! This month I'm seeing around 40% made up from subs so far.

ayzek · « **Reply #133 on:** November 22, 2011, 15:42 »

Same here. %49 from sub sales.

lagereek · « **Reply #134 on:** November 22, 2011, 15:51 »

Same here, less then 50% are subs. Plenty of sales-on-demands and ELs.

Perry · « **Reply #135 on:** November 22, 2011, 16:23 »

This is getting off-topic, but I just had to do the maths too...

SS earnings October 2011 (the last whole month):
Subscriptions 51%
On-Demand 29%
Extended licences 19%
Single & Other downloads 1%

loop · « **Reply #136 on:** November 22, 2011, 17:24 »

Because the difference in prices (although being OD and El sales very much lower in income than at IS any non subs sale beats a 0,35 sale) this 50% OD sales seems to indicate more o less about 1 OD-EL sale every ten7fifteen subs sales? ¿Is that right?

cobalt · « **Reply #137 on:** November 22, 2011, 17:31 »

ah, are you guys comparing money? then I would expect the income from pay as you go to be at least 2-3 times more than from subs.

What do the percentages look like if you just compare number of downloads? (sales volume, not money volume)

helix7 · « **Reply #138 on:** November 22, 2011, 18:07 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 22, 2011, 17:31

ah, are you guys comparing money? then I would expect the income from pay as you go to be at least 2-3 times more than from subs...

Why? SS used to be subscription-only, and subs are still a major part of the business. On-demand packages haven't been around all that long, and single-image sales are brand new. No way anyone would expect those sales to overtake subscriptions that quickly and that significantly.

cobalt · « **Reply #139 on:** November 22, 2011, 18:42 »

isnt one pay as you go sale several times more than a subscription?

ss has a lot of customers, i am not surprised that many are taking up pay as you go. and if istock customers are migrating, i would expect them to choose a plan with what they know.

when v/a was pushed to the front of the search engine for months, many customers must have moved to the next big brand they know - shutterstock.

helix7 · « **Reply #140 on:** November 22, 2011, 18:49 »

Quote from: cobalt on November 22, 2011, 18:42

...ss has a lot of customers, i am not surprised that many are taking up pay as you go. and if istock customers are migrating, i would expect them to choose a plan with what they know...

True, migrating customers would probably go with what they're familiar with, that being PPD. But I think those options at SS are still too new overtake subscription earnings any more than they have. That might change over time, but so far it seems to boil down to a pretty even split between sub earnings and PPD/OD earnings.

KB · « **Reply #141 on:** November 22, 2011, 19:00 »

Quote from: helix7 on November 22, 2011, 18:49

True, migrating customers would probably go with what they're familiar with, that being PPD. But I think those options at SS are still too new overtake subscription earnings any more than they have. That might change over time, but so far it seems to boil down to a pretty even split between sub earnings and PPD/OD earnings.

I'm not implying you're wrong, but I do wonder just how long you think it might take?

Isn't PPD about 3 years old now?

gostwyck · « **Reply #142 on:** November 22, 2011, 19:15 »

Quote from: KB on November 22, 2011, 19:00

I'm not implying you're wrong, but I do wonder just how long you think it might take? Isn't PPD about 3 years old now?

Strictly speaking the 'PPD' sales on SS are actually sold via 'Image Packs' which limit the buyer to a number of images at a specific size (large or small). They are only just starting to test the market for 'Single Image' sales where the buyer can just buy an individual image at the required size.

I don't recall recall SS ever failing when they've entered a new market so it should be interesting to see what happens when they roll out the Single Image sales worldwide.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #143 on:** November 22, 2011, 19:46 »

The only thing SS withdrew from, and I assume it was because it just didn't generate enough business (I know I never got many sales through it) was the precursor to on demand which was at a different site. There were several of them and then the shut them all down - I think it was SS-owned sites, not partnerships, but I don't remember.

As far as the comparison of a download at SS with a DL at IS, my all time low (as an independent and excluding the original 10/20/30 cents of 2004) was 12 cents, and I've never had a download that low at any other site that I recall. So even the subscription download looks pretty good by comparison. The Single image royalty compares pretty favorably with the XL and sometimes XXL downloads on iStock, so although that's the newest and I've seen the fewest, it's doing a great job for boosting overall earnings.

And SS is beating the pants off IS this month in terms of total $$, which shouldn't be happening, but it is.

gostwyck · « **Reply #144 on:** November 22, 2011, 20:16 »

Quote from: jsnover on November 22, 2011, 19:46

As far as the comparison of a download at SS with a DL at IS, my all time low (as an independent and excluding the original 10/20/30 cents of 2004) was 12 cents, and I've never had a download that low at any other site that I recall.

Last year, if I remember correctly, I had a 6c sale at IS. 'Ancient credits' was the explanation. Fortunately that was before they reduced the commissions or I'd have got even less.

michaeldb · « **Reply #145 on:** November 22, 2011, 20:34 »

Re PPD versus Subs sales on SS and IS:
Like IS, SS has another site. If we are going to talk about the ratio of Subs to PPD on SS, should we not include the PPD sales we get on BigStock?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #146 on:** November 22, 2011, 20:57 »

Quote from: michaeldb on November 22, 2011, 20:34

Re PPD versus Subs sales on SS and IS:
Like IS, SS has another site. If we are going to talk about the ratio of Subs to PPD on SS, should we not include the PPD sales we get on BigStock?

Probably, but in my case it wouldn't alter anything much as the BS numbers are so small.

Noodles · « **Reply #147 on:** November 22, 2011, 23:04 »

well all I can say is here in Australia things are looking good

stockanon · « **Reply #148 on:** November 23, 2011, 06:58 »

I´m an iStock exclusive at the diamond level and have been contributing there since 2007 (let the guessing begin). For my own reasons I´ve chosen to remain anonymous at this time and this is my first ever post here on MSG.

This thread as well as other recent conversations both here and in the istock sales threads have me very worried about the future of istock. Is iStock becoming the Myspace of the microstock world? I certainly hope not, but my faith in IS has been slowly eroding for over a year now and this month it is the worst ever.

A year ago I used to average about 30-40 DLs on a normal weekday. This year that number dropped to 20-30 per weekday. This month it has dropped to 10-20 per weekday. Yesterday I only had 5 DLs, which for me is unheard of on a regular working Tuesday, normally my best day of the week. I have a good number of Vettas and a smaller number of Agency files but royalties from those few sales are not near enough to balance the loss of revenue from decreasing DLs. I know these are just my numbers so they are anectdotal at best. But that said, something is seriously wrong with this picture. I don´t upload as much as I could, but I do try to upload regularly. So, what does all this mean?

It´s causing me to seriously question staying exclusive at IS and for that matter, it´s causing me to question the concept of microstock in general (yeah, I know that sounds a bit dramatic). I really don't know what to do but it´s clear that something has to change and they say that change begins with "me". It's just hard when you've invested so much with one agency and now you're getting a big fat turd in return.

michealo · « **Reply #149 on:** November 23, 2011, 07:16 »

Quote from: stockanon on November 23, 2011, 06:58

I´m an iStock exclusive at the diamond level and have been contributing there since 2007 (let the guessing begin). For my own reasons I´ve chosen to remain anonymous at this time and this is my first ever post here on MSG.

This thread as well as other recent conversations both here and in the istock sales threads have me very worried about the future of istock. Is iStock becoming the Myspace of the microstock world? I certainly hope not, but my faith in IS has been slowly eroding for over a year now and this month it is the worst ever.

A year ago I used to average about 30-40 DLs on a normal weekday. This year that number dropped to 20-30 per weekday. This month it has dropped to 10-20 per weekday. Yesterday I only had 5 DLs, which for me is unheard of on a regular working Tuesday, normally my best day of the week. I have a good number of Vettas and a smaller number of Agency files but royalties from those few sales are not near enough to balance the loss of revenue from decreasing DLs. I know these are just my numbers so they are anectdotal at best. But that said, something is seriously wrong with this picture. I don´t upload as much as I could, but I do try to upload regularly. So, what does all this mean?

It´s causing me to seriously question staying exclusive at IS and for that matter, it´s causing me to question the concept of microstock in general (yeah, I know that sounds a bit dramatic). I really don't know what to do but it´s clear that something has to change and they say that change begins with "me". It's just hard when you've invested so much with one agency and now you're getting a big fat turd in return.

Note it's not a regular Tuesday it's two days before thanksgiving in the US which is a major market for IS.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock fails to recover ground (Read 73576 times)

BaldricksTrousers

Gannet77

cobalt

gostwyck

cobalt

Jo Ann Snover

helix7

rubyroo

ayzek

lagereek

Perry

loop

cobalt

helix7

cobalt

helix7

KB

gostwyck

Jo Ann Snover

gostwyck

michaeldb

Jo Ann Snover

Noodles

stockanon

michealo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors