Author Topic: Istock sales since price changes (Read 27854 times)

LesHoward · « **Reply #75 on:** July 11, 2013, 14:37 »

Quote from: Fran on July 10, 2013, 22:29

0.40$ for a L is getting pretty ridiculous.

The buyer therefore paid somewhere between $0.50 and $0.67 per credit depending on your royalty rate. That seems very low. Was it a subscription sale?

ShadySue · « **Reply #76 on:** July 11, 2013, 15:04 »

Quote from: LesHoward on July 11, 2013, 14:37

Quote from: Fran on July 10, 2013, 22:29
0.40$ for a L is getting pretty ridiculous.

The buyer therefore paid somewhere between $0.50 and $0.67 per credit depending on your royalty rate. That seems very low. Was it a subscription sale?

That's low, but not very low (relatively). I think we've identified on msg credits as low as 42c, and I've had sales with a credit value <45c.

tickstock · « **Reply #77 on:** July 11, 2013, 15:57 »

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #78 on:** July 12, 2013, 02:32 »

Quote from: tickstock on July 11, 2013, 15:57

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on July 11, 2013, 14:13
Quote from: tickstock on July 11, 2013, 13:28
The average for the lowest level contributor on Istock would be a bit over 80 cents for a Large image and around $1.50 for XXXL. The averages seem very similar now that Istock has lowered the price of independents files, coincidence?

Wrong. The highest you can get at the lowest royalty rate is 4 credits * $1.63 * 15% = $0.96. The list prices for Corporate Account are giving up to 40% discount for large packages. There are regular discounts of up to 20% etc. So your "bit over 80 cents" are very much on the optimistic end.

As I said, iStock does have a subscription program paying (in my case) $0.28 per download, for large or small ones. It's just elegantly hidden behind the name "Partner program" but it's not different. About two thirds of my downloads within "the total iStock deal" are coming from this PP, so the average across all iStock downloads is lowered far beyond your calculation.

And yes, there is an inherent difference between subscription sales and single image/image pack sales: If you have to pay separately for each single image, you are very likely to only download images that you are going to use; subscription buyers are far more indiscriminate to download more images than they are actually need because they paid for anyways. Be it for comping, mood boards, or potential future uses.
Wronger. The last time averages were done for credit cost it was around $1.40/credit. $1.4x.15x4=$.84, they go up to $4.75/credit for Large images if you look at cash prices. Yes they have a sub program and to my point, a L image at Istock for $.40 is better than the Istock partner program and subs at shutterstock. My response to Fran had nothing to do with averages because his post had nothing to do with averages, it's off topic. The license is the relevant thing not whether or not some hypothetical buyer will actually use them, they still have the license which is what they paid for either way.

This entire subject is off topic

PZF · « **Reply #79 on:** July 12, 2013, 03:35 »

As a non-excl with all pics now Main I find that volume is still similar - but value well down. Before, mainly due to P+ (?) a LARGE would net me between 2 and 3 dollars. Now it doesn't reach 1 dollar....
Sigh....
Stopped uploading for now - all that hassle for pennies - let alone the PP situation...
Sigh again........

dingles · « **Reply #80 on:** July 12, 2013, 09:52 »

I agree, my image sales in the main collection are up, but the dollar amount is down. So really the price changes has allowed us to provide buyers with more image for less money...the sales aren't up enough to even level the $ out. So all in all it appears at this stage to be a hit on non-exclusive content. Hopefully things pick up, it is still early.

A bit off topic, my exclusive sales seem to be strong so far. July seems to be my BME already. So all in all, I can't complain too much...yet

Fran · « **Reply #81 on:** July 12, 2013, 12:48 »

Quote from: LesHoward on July 11, 2013, 14:37

Quote from: Fran on July 10, 2013, 22:29
0.40$ for a L is getting pretty ridiculous.

The buyer therefore paid somewhere between $0.50 and $0.67 per credit depending on your royalty rate. That seems very low. Was it a subscription sale?

No, normal sale. I used to get 2.75$ for a L.

Pixart · « **Reply #82 on:** July 12, 2013, 13:11 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on July 11, 2013, 14:23

Let me just add, there is indeed a positive aspect I currently observe with the new prices: I rarely had downloads beyond the Large size in the past. Usually about 2-3% of my sales were XL or larger.

In July my XL+ sales are at 12% of my downloads. So even though it's a short period of time, my current assumption is that buyers are buying "rather too large than too small" at those low prices nowadays. So I could (like my assumption with lots of subs sales never going to use) also conclude that many of these downloads are "overpaid" in comparison to their actual use.

ETA: I just pulled the other end of the stats - usually I had 25-30% of my downloads in XS size, in July the number of XS downloads was just 10%. So indeed it seems more clients are going for higher resolutions than they did in the past. I like that trend.

So... the buyers are getting more for less. And sellers are getting....... less for more?

disorderly · « **Reply #83 on:** July 12, 2013, 14:52 »

Quote from: Pixart on July 12, 2013, 13:11

So... the buyers are getting more for less. And sellers are getting....... less for more?

Sellers are getting more of less. Maybe. Which, if true, might be more, or it might be less.

wds · « **Reply #84 on:** July 12, 2013, 20:35 »

It took years for iS to get into the position it's in (whatever that really is). So I must believe that it will take a significant amount of time to see the net effect of these changes, certainly more than a couple of weeks.

ShadySue · « **Reply #85 on:** July 14, 2013, 18:38 »

Like I said, I do my weekly stats around midnight UK time, so I've just done it for the week.
For downloads, this has been my WWY. (OT - since 1/3 of my pathetic few dls were Main, the $$ is my worst since I started keeping records on 1st Jan 2008, except for the week between Christmas and New Year in the past two years (only).
I know the one remaining believer is going to say Summer Slump, so compared to:
the corresponding week last year: dls -73%, $$ c-80%; not counting last year's ELs, still -66%
Same week in 2011: dls -c60% $$ -60%
(Don't have figures for the single week in previous years, as when I was teaching I went travelling in July, but the aggregate would suggest higher figures in the corresponding weeks back to 2008)
Lowest RC week since RCs started barring week ending 31st Dec 2012.

Thanks for nothing, ~~iStock~~ Ellen.

ignard · « **Reply #86 on:** July 14, 2013, 19:10 »

New customers travel by foot
Former customers leave by horse

(free after a Dutch saying)

It will take plenty of time to see the effect.

Lowering the Price is just the fastest way to screw up the market and to make sure that nobody makes money

gostwyck · « **Reply #87 on:** July 15, 2013, 07:25 »

Quote from: ignard on July 14, 2013, 19:10

It will take plenty of time to see the effect.

Lowering the Price is just the fastest way to screw up the market and to make sure that nobody makes money

It's not taken me much time to see the effect! My income from Istock has been slashed (and so has the revenue that IS are earning from it).

IS are projected to contribute less than 13% of my total microstock earnings this month and my portfolio at SS is now earning nearly 4x more for me than it is at IS.

No independent contributor now has any incentive to upload new content to IS unless royalties are increased substantially ... but IS won't be able to do that without also increasing exclusive rates ... which Getty would never allow.

I'm really not sure how IS can drag themselves out of they hole they have dug. I can see them becoming a boutique 'exclusive only' agency at sometime in the future but more by the accident of independent contributors leaving (or starving them of new content) than by design.

lisafx · « **Reply #88 on:** July 15, 2013, 10:55 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 15, 2013, 07:25

No independent contributor now has any incentive to upload new content to IS unless royalties are increased substantially ... but IS won't be able to do that without also increasing exclusive rates ... which Getty would never allow.

I'm really not sure how IS can drag themselves out of they hole they have dug. I can see them becoming a boutique 'exclusive only' agency at sometime in the future but more by the accident of independent contributors leaving (or starving them of new content) than by design.

I had thought that the PP would provide enough incentive to keep some indies uploading to IS, but with the PP payouts being so unreliable (or nonexistent), that's the last incentive gone.

dingles · « **Reply #89 on:** July 15, 2013, 10:58 »

I'm still getting more for my images at iStock than I do at SS. My last two sales at SS were 25 cents...at least the PP at iStock is 28 cent ;P. And my last image sale after the price change at IS was around 75 cents...it's all pathetic if you ask me

Ron · « **Reply #90 on:** July 15, 2013, 11:23 »

Quote from: dingles on July 15, 2013, 10:58

I'm still getting more for my images at iStock than I do at SS. My last two sales at SS were 25 cents...at least the PP at iStock is 28 cent ;P. And my last image sale after the price change at IS was around 75 cents...it's all pathetic if you ask me

Your next level at SS is an 8 cent increase or a 32% increase, to 33 cent, surpassing the IS 28c royalty

lisafx · « **Reply #91 on:** July 15, 2013, 11:29 »

Quote from: dingles on July 15, 2013, 10:58

I'm still getting more for my images at iStock than I do at SS. My last two sales at SS were 25 cents...at least the PP at iStock is 28 cent ;P.

So then you've actually been PAID for your PP downloads from the past couple of months? What's your secret?

First off, you will eventually earn more than .25 from SS, but only ever .28 from PP. That is if you can manage to get paid. I am assuming you've already been paid for your SS earnings from May and June, so in actuality, it's .25/DL from SS, and a big fat goose egg from IS PP.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #92 on:** July 15, 2013, 11:57 »

The changes at BS have changed my thinking.
I'll stop uploading there (I was not included in The Bridge) and send my SS rejects (and older slow sellers) to iS (Thinkstock) and CS.
I don't know that CS will be any better than BS ... but

dingles · « **Reply #93 on:** July 15, 2013, 13:47 »

Quote from: lisafx on July 15, 2013, 11:29

Quote from: dingles on July 15, 2013, 10:58
I'm still getting more for my images at iStock than I do at SS. My last two sales at SS were 25 cents...at least the PP at iStock is 28 cent ;P.

So then you've actually been PAID for your PP downloads from the past couple of months? What's your secret?

First off, you will eventually earn more than .25 from SS, but only ever .28 from PP. That is if you can manage to get paid. I am assuming you've already been paid for your SS earnings from May and June, so in actuality, it's .25/DL from SS, and a big fat goose egg from IS PP.

Okay, this is true...I'm talking past performance on IS.

smarty pants ;p

luissantos84 · « **Reply #94 on:** July 15, 2013, 13:52 »

sorry dingles but you still haven't even made 500$ at SS and you talking about IS performance? believe it is quite soon to make predictions no?

sc · « **Reply #95 on:** July 15, 2013, 13:52 »

This link just got posted in the iStock forum:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1560?esource=50407_iStock_ABC_Wave_2_RNB_EN_em&sp_rid=&sp_mid=5577078

luissantos84 · « **Reply #96 on:** July 15, 2013, 13:56 »

Quote from: SC on July 15, 2013, 13:52

This link just got posted in the iStock forum:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1560?esource=50407_iStock_ABC_Wave_2_RNB_EN_em&sp_rid=&sp_mid=5577078

how sad is that? god!

Ron · « **Reply #97 on:** July 15, 2013, 14:02 »

Quote from: SC on July 15, 2013, 13:52

This link just got posted in the iStock forum:
http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1560?esource=50407_iStock_ABC_Wave_2_RNB_EN_em&sp_rid=&sp_mid=5577078

Its full of false advertising as well.

dingles · « **Reply #98 on:** July 15, 2013, 14:07 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on July 15, 2013, 13:52

sorry dingles but you still haven't even made 500$ at SS and you talking about IS performance? believe it is quite soon to make predictions no?

Not true, I haven't made much with images at IS either. I'm a video/animation guy. Even though I have been doing studio photography for over 10 years I am new to selling it on microstock. Anyway, I'm not a big fish at either site...it's not like I have been excelling with photos at IS either. I just noticed the prices I get for images there seem higher as a beginner than on SS as a beginner...that is all...commence IS bashing

lisafx · « **Reply #99 on:** July 15, 2013, 14:37 »

Quote from: dingles on July 15, 2013, 13:47

Okay, this is true...I'm talking past performance on IS. smarty pants ;p

Fair enough

Guess I'm just not in the mood to cut Istock any slack today. If I see some serious money start to roll in from the PP it should improve my state of mind.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

iStock sales VOLUME since the start of Jy?

Author Topic: Istock sales since price changes (Read 27854 times)

LesHoward

ShadySue

tickstock

BaldricksTrousers

PZF

dingles

Fran

Pixart

disorderly

wds

ShadySue

ignard

gostwyck

lisafx

dingles

Ron

lisafx

WarrenPrice

dingles

luissantos84

sc

luissantos84

Ron

dingles

lisafx

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors