MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: BaldricksTrousers on July 08, 2013, 07:13
-
Vote on sales volume, not sales value, please.
My sales over the last week have been about 50% up on the average I've been running so far this year (taking the week as a quarter of a month). It seems clear that the dollar bin pricing has pulled in some sales, though actual earnings are well down on the earlier average (most of what is selling was previously in "Photo+").
There are two obvious questions: One is whether my experience is typical of indes. The other is, if so, have we just pulled some sales away from exclusives or does this reflect an iStock strategic triumph, pulling hordes of buyers back to the site. I think the questions above should give an indication of that, if there are enough replies.
-
How can I not vote significantly down when I am getting a buck for what I used to get $3 for? And my volume hasn't gone up. My playing field is relatively the same as everyone else so I have a hard time accepting that my sales will be "about the same" (unless they really do attract new buyers and frequency goes up). Give it until after July then we will have our first full month, but right now, way down for me.
-
How can I not vote significantly down when I am getting a buck for what I used to get $3 for? And my volume hasn't gone up. My playing field is relatively the same as everyone else so I have a hard time accepting that my sales will be "about the same" (unless they really do attract new buyers and frequency goes up). Give it until after July then we will have our first full month, but right now, way down for me.
I meant to be about the NUMBER of sales, Mantis, not the value received. You can change your vote if you want to.
-
How can I not vote significantly down when I am getting a buck for what I used to get $3 for? And my volume hasn't gone up. My playing field is relatively the same as everyone else so I have a hard time accepting that my sales will be "about the same" (unless they really do attract new buyers and frequency goes up). Give it until after July then we will have our first full month, but right now, way down for me.
I meant to be about the NUMBER of sales, Mantis, not the value received. You can change your vote if you want to.
Hmmmm, ok I will go have a look & repost.
-
About the same number of sales for half the value.
-
Similar sales, but it's way too early to make a call on this.
-
Sales volume is up by about 30-35% over the first few months of the year. And that is in the middle of the summer with Canada Day and Independence Day.
Money is down by about 20%...
-
Can't vote because I deleted all of my images.
-
June was my worst month ever as exclusive and July seems to be even worse. This is the first time since I became exclusive that I'm seriously worried about sales.
-
I do my weekly stats on a Sunday, and the week ending yesterday was my 2nd WWY (by one) for dls. Exactly 25% down on the corresponding week last year, and c50% down on the corresponding week in 2011.
The last two weeks in June were c10% down on the same two weeks in June 2012, and >50% on the corresponding weeks of June 2011.
Voted: Exclusive - sugnificantly down.
-
Sales volume is waaaaaaaayyyyyy down (indie). That combined with the slashing of what I get per sale and iStock has become a non-issue for me. I'll leave my port but won't be uploading any new material until, and if, things change.
-
Similar sales, but it's way too early to make a call on this.
My idea is that if enough people take the trouble to vote, the overall result will compensate for the limited number of days. I've also allowed for votes to be changed if people want to come back when they have more data. I was very surprised to see that my own sales were so much up despite the summer.
-
About the same number but way lower return.
I'll wait with uploading my new images till they have completed the transition to the new collection structure.
-
Similar sales, but it's way too early to make a call on this.
My idea is that if enough people take the trouble to vote, the overall result will compensate for the limited number of days. I've also allowed for votes to be changed if people want to come back when they have more data. I was very surprised to see that my own sales were so much up despite the summer.
How do you change your vote? Just realised I voted as non-exclusive, but I'm exclusive.
-
Similar sales, but it's way too early to make a call on this.
My idea is that if enough people take the trouble to vote, the overall result will compensate for the limited number of days. I've also allowed for votes to be changed if people want to come back when they have more data. I was very surprised to see that my own sales were so much up despite the summer.
How do you change your vote? Just realised I voted as non-exclusive, but I'm exclusive.
I'm not sure - I can only see the author's version of the poll, but I clicked the box to allow the vote to change when I set it up - do you have a button anywhere around the poll saying you can edit or change your vote?
-
I cant edit my vote, the option is not there.
-
I'm exclusive and vector. I removed my photos in February. Most of my port is Signature = 15 credit, but pricing is differs wildly from sale to sale.
June 15 thru 30 = 12 sales
July 1 thru 7 = 18 sales
-
July is always slow, so the price change is hard to factor in. That said I sold a large file today for $24.75 An image that was moved to Vetta in the change and my first new Vetta in years.
-
Sales are down by half. Income, of course, is one third on each sale now that everything is in the main collection. IS is being outsold byDT, FT, 123, deposit, and can stock. They aren't in the same league as SS. I will not be submitting, and if I don't see improvement I will withdraw my images in September.
-
download numbers the same, $$ exactly half - not good for me
-
It's still a bit too early to tell. It seems that my sales volume is somewhat higher, than before the price reductions, but it is certainly not definitive or high enough to warrant a 'Significantly Higher' vote.
Of course the revenue is hugely down ... and that's the statistic that really matters. If my projections, based on the new lower RPD, turn out as badly as I am expecting then I will be down about $350 per month. Of course, if that happens, then Istock's revenue (from my sales) will also be down about $1600 per month. They are taking a HUGE hit on revenue from independent contributors. They've pretty much pressed the nuclear button with this gamble.
-
It's still a bit too early to tell. It seems that my sales volume is somewhat higher, than before the price reductions, but it is certainly not definitive or high enough to warrant a 'Significantly Higher' vote.
Of course the revenue is hugely down ... and that's the statistic that really matters. If my projections, based on the new lower RPD, turn out as badly as I am expecting then I will be down about $350 per month. Of course, if that happens, then Istock's revenue (from my sales) will also be down about $1600 per month. They are taking a HUGE hit on revenue from independent contributors. They've pretty much pressed the nuclear button with this gamble.
I agree with the entire post above, but bolded the part about sales being slightly or somewhat up, but not enough describe as "significant".
I voted about the same, but they are slightly up. Money WAY down though. Down a lot more than I had expected.
-
And in addition to the price changes they seem to have done a massive best match change that favors older highly download files. Good times.
-
And in addition to the price changes they seem to have done a massive best match change that favors older highly download files. Good times.
This has been the case for a few months now. In fact, new files have been doa since September.
Also remember that you're not always actually being shown the Best Match sort even if you wanted it and it says Best Match as the sort at the top of the page.
-
Is anyone planning to delete their portfolio or deactivate files because of this? I'm considering deactivating some of my best sellers in response to this, but I'm wondering what others doing, if anything.
-
And in addition to the price changes they seem to have done a massive best match change that favors older highly download files. Good times.
This has been the case for a few months now. In fact, new files have been doa since September.
Also remember that you're not always actually being shown the Best Match sort even if you wanted it and it says Best Match as the sort at the top of the page.
I monitor my files pretty closely and I haven't seen any significant change in months. Today when I checked it was completely different. I haven't seen this big of a change in probably over a year. Before it seemed to give preference to performance. Now it's downloads.
-
I seem to be noticing quite a few more sales happening since this change, but it's certainly not in my favour - the sales amounts are tiny compared to my P+ sales before (majority of my sales were from P+). So now although volume is up, I doubt by the end of the month that $$ will be up as well.
Bring back P+
-
i think results will vary according to what you shoot.
i found my sales volume is roughly about the same, but it's also a tricky one to sort as well because july is not really a great barometer of sales, especially the first week of july, especially with a few holidays thrown into the mix in the usa and canada, plus weekends.
from what i am seeing is that my sales volume is roughly the same give or take, but revenue per download is way way up, surpassing what i would have made without the changes.
-
Is anyone planning to delete their portfolio or deactivate files because of this? I'm considering deactivating some of my best sellers in response to this, but I'm wondering what others doing, if anything.
I've deleted about another 150. Not big sellers, but ones I've noticed people are prepared to pay a few dollars for.
-
Is anyone planning to delete their portfolio or deactivate files because of this? I'm considering deactivating some of my best sellers in response to this, but I'm wondering what others doing, if anything.
With the best match and the recent collection change iStock has essentially deleted my port for me.
-
My sales are down infinitely - from something to nothing.
I do not consider this a statistically valid result.
Of course until we see the PP results we won't actually know how IS images are performing as and Indy.
-
*moved to the right thread*
-
About the same for me. My port has always been "main" collection anyway because I was too idle to take advantage of P+
It seems a bit premature to gauge impact, particularly as there are other factors; the fabled summer slow period for example where those of us without images of elfin girls prancing through the buttercups tend to suffer. I'm certainly down on last year but that's due to IS relegating all my best sellers to the wilderness and their foot in mouth management style, coupled with their arrogant treatment of customers and a porcine business strategy concerned only with getting their snout in the trough and keeping it there at all costs.
Edit. Apologies for the rant but every time I think about IS these days it induces a fizzing sense of indignation and betrayal.
-
i think results will vary according to what you shoot.
i found my sales volume is roughly about the same, but it's also a tricky one to sort as well because july is not really a great barometer of sales, especially the first week of july, especially with a few holidays thrown into the mix in the usa and canada, plus weekends.
from what i am seeing is that my sales volume is roughly the same give or take, but revenue per download is way way up, surpassing what i would have made without the changes.
Out of curiosity, do you attribute your increase in revenue due to iS making a bunch of your files S+? Did you not use your full E+ allotment previously?
-
i think results will vary according to what you shoot.
In comparison to other people, yes; but not so much when comparing your sales to similar periods in previous years.
-
Exclusive - with only Sig or Sig+ Purchases are significantly down but I'm earning about the same. New uploads are a complete waste of time!
-
i think results will vary according to what you shoot.
i found my sales volume is roughly about the same, but it's also a tricky one to sort as well because july is not really a great barometer of sales, especially the first week of july, especially with a few holidays thrown into the mix in the usa and canada, plus weekends.
from what i am seeing is that my sales volume is roughly the same give or take, but revenue per download is way way up, surpassing what i would have made without the changes.
Out of curiosity, do you attribute your increase in revenue due to iS making a bunch of your files S+? Did you not use your full E+ allotment previously?
yes, revenue per download appears to be up due to IS making a bunch of my files S+ (ones that I would have never thunk), and no I did not use any of my allotment for E+ apart from what they gave me initially. I did at one point put several images into E+ (ones that i really thought would take off) and noticed that my sales on my choices totally tanked, so I pulled them and put them back into the normal collection. That said, the original choices they made for me did do well.
I still think it's a bit early to notice a pattern, however I will give it a few months before I conclude if they are doing the right thing or not. Thus far however, I do remain optimistic.
-
i think results will vary according to what you shoot.
In comparison to other people, yes; but not so much when comparing your sales to similar periods in previous years.
I think industry wide comparing sales to similar periods in previous years most people are down, the market is saturated with images, and the subscription sites are killing us all.
-
Exclusive - with only Sig or Sig+ Purchases are significantly down but I'm earning about the same. New uploads are a complete waste of time!
You have NO Main collection files? How did you accomplish that? You actually didn't have any files in your port with 0 (or in some cases of forced demotion to Main, 1 or 2) DLs? Or did you deactivate all of your demoted files?
-
yes, revenue per download appears to be up due to IS making a bunch of my files S+ (ones that I would have never thunk), and no I did not use any of my allotment for E+ apart from what they gave me initially.
I still think it's a bit early to notice a pattern, however I will give it a few months before I conclude if they are doing the right thing or not. Thus far however, I do remain optimistic.
SO not true for me. I did make use of my E+ allotment, carefully promoting those that I felt would be well served as E+. I think I did a pretty decent job, especially compared to the random job that IS did in auto-promoting to S+.
As an example, I had a file that was #1 by best match in a crowded search (almost 400,000 results). It's since fallen to #14, but that's still pretty good. It had been selling pretty steadily at 6-7 per month. Not a huge seller, but decent enough. It has sold ONE time in the almost 4 weeks since the collection changes.
Multiply that times the dozens of my best selling files that were promoted to S+ that haven't sold even once since the change, and you can see that for some, the changes have been devasting.
-
93.1% has the same volume or down. Only 6.9% see an improvement. I think the picture is starting to form.
-
/
-
93.1% has the same volume or down. Only 6.9% see an improvement. I think the picture is starting to form.
So the only thing that changed for independents was that the price was reduced, why would that cause less sales? I'm a little skeptical that buyers are buying less files now that they cost less.
The lowering of pricing didnt cause a massive increase of sales. Buyers havent come back in drones yet. If the pricing is lowered but the volume is not making up for it, everybody loses money.
-
/
-
The lowering of pricing didnt cause a massive increase of sales. Buyers havent come back in drones yet. If the pricing is lowered but the volume is not making up for it, everybody loses money.
Buyers needn't have come back to cause an increase in sales to independents, they just needed to shift their buying from what are now very expensive images (S+) to those similars that are far less expensive ones (M). Based on my sales, they do seem to have shifted, but perhaps they are shifting from S+ to S, rather than to M?
-
93.1% has the same volume or down. Only 6.9% see an improvement. I think the picture is starting to form.
So the only thing that changed for independents was that the price was reduced, why would that cause less sales? I'm a little skeptical that buyers are buying less files now that they cost less.
The lowering of pricing didnt cause a massive increase of sales. Buyers havent come back in drones yet. If the pricing is lowered but the volume is not making up for it, everybody loses money.
Significant and massive mean different things, you can have a significant rise without it being massive. The poll is not about money it's about downloads, it's irrelevant to this thread whether or not anyone is losing money or not, the question was about downloads and specifically excluded money.
I know its about downloads, thats what I am saying. Read my first sentence. I am also mentioning volume.
Massive - significant, tomato, you know what I mean. Lets not go into a language discussion again.
I am not trying to convince you by the way, thats impossible.
-
Volume: down
Value: waaaaaay down
Partner sales: Does IS have partner sales. Yes, probably.
Partner sales payout is of a different kind. Still haven''t seen a penny for may and june
Will I be uploading new pictures: NO
Will I stay with IS: Probably not, I only upload to the top 6
SS is stronger than ever both in volume and value.
iS tumbled down from a 4th place (behind SS, Beeldbank (local player) and FT)
To a 10th place
-
So far a narrow majority of indes are saying they have the same or more sales than before, whereas a majority of exclusives are saying their sales are down and none are saying their sales are up.
An awful lot of indes are saying their sales are lower than expected, which is a bit of a surprise though it may just be because of the summer and the holidays.
To me it suggests weak evidence of a shift of sales towards indes in the main collection. Whether the exclusive files have been allocated to higher priced collections than before in large enough numbers to have increased the overall spend (and commission payments) on exclusive files is something that would need a separate survey.
-
'
-
So far a narrow majority of indes are saying they have the same or more sales than before, whereas a majority of exclusives are saying their sales are down and none are saying their sales are up.
An awful lot of indes are saying their sales are lower than expected, which is a bit of a surprise though it may just be because of the summer and the holidays.
To me it suggests weak evidence of a shift of sales towards indes in the main collection. Whether the exclusive files have been allocated to higher priced collections than before in large enough numbers to have increased the overall spend (and commission payments) on exclusive files is something that would need a separate survey.
That's one way of looking at it. A narrow majority of indies are at the same or more while a massively overwhelming majority of indies are at the same or lower. I think people are reporting on sales figures rather than downloads (that's my generous view, although I suspect a lot of people just like to say Istock is losing sales at any opportunity whether or not they are contributing there and irregardless of what the statistics say).
The summerdays are the best months for me. and IS is down, down, deeper than down. SS is up, up, upper than up. so is FT
-
93.1% has the same volume or down. Only 6.9% see an improvement. I think the picture is starting to form.
So the only thing that changed for independents was that the price was reduced, why would that cause less sales? I'm a little skeptical that buyers are buying less files now that they cost less.
The lowering of pricing didnt cause a massive increase of sales. Buyers havent come back in drones yet. If the pricing is lowered but the volume is not making up for it, everybody loses money.
Yes as usual they are willing to shaft submitters to gain market share. The question is will lowering prices be enough to gain the market share they are seeking.
IS has read the financial reports and can see that even at low sub prices "our supposedly low worth assets" provided monthly cash distributions to members of Shutterstock Images LLC with respect to their membership interests totaling $90.5 million in less than 3 years. To my knowledge there is no public information for cash distributions for the years prior to those reported via the SEC.
IS can see that SS paid down $12.0 million of the $12 million term loan term loan facility that it entered into on September 21, 2012 to fund working capital needs following the corps final $36.0 million cash distribution to the members of Shutterstock Images LLC prior to the pre IPO Reorganization.
$90.5 million cash in less than three years is not bad when you also consider current revenue as well stock prices. IS has no problem driving the value of our assets down to participate in the race to gain market share.
Shutterstock Images LLC Cash Distributions prior to the IPO Reorganization
For the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, distributions to the members of Shutterstock Images LLC were $28.6 million and $25.9 million, respectively.
Additionally, between January 1, 2012 and October 4, 2012, we distributed $36.0 million to the members of Shutterstock Images LLC.
10Q 3/31/2013 http://www.secinfo.com/d11MXs.x17an.htm#1stPage (http://www.secinfo.com/d11MXs.x17an.htm#1stPage)
Liquidity and Capital Resources
As of March 31, 2013, we had cash and cash equivalents of $107.0 million, which primarily consisted of money market mutual funds and checking accounts. Since inception, we have financed our operations primarily through cash flow generated from operations. Historically, our principal uses of cash have been funding our operations, capital expenditures and distributions to members. On October 4, 2012, we made a final distribution to the LLC members constituting approximately all of the cash generated from the operations of the LLC, since the last distribution to members and any other cash and cash equivalents on hand at the time of the distribution, other than any amounts received under the term loan facility, as described below. Following this final distribution, no additional distributions were made to members of the LLC prior to the Reorganization. Additionally, following the Reorganization, our tax rate and related tax payments have increased significantly as we became subject to federal, state and additional city income tax.
We entered into a term loan facility in September of 2012 that provided for a $12 million term loan. Following the final distribution to members described above, the borrowings from the term loan facility were used to fund the short-term capital needs of our operations following the final distribution to members described above and our IPO. On December 24, 2012, we paid down $6.0 million of the term loan and on March 25, 2013, we paid off the remaining outstanding balance of $6 million. As of March 31, 2013, we have no outstanding debt. Additionally, we believe our existing cash and cash equivalents and cash flow generated from operations will be sufficient to meet our working capital and capital expenditure for at least the next twelve months.
We plan to finance our operations and capital expenses largely through our operations. Since our results of operations are sensitive to the level of competition we face, increased competition could adversely affect our liquidity and capital resources, both by reducing our revenues and our net income, as a result of reduced sales, reduced prices and increased promotional activities, among other factors, as well as by requiring us to spend cash on advertising and marketing in an effort to maintain or increase market share in the face of such competition. In addition, the advertising and marketing expenses used to maintain market share and support future revenues will be funded from current capital resources or from borrowings or equity financings. As a result, our ability to grow our business relying largely on funds from our operations is sensitive to competitive pressures and other risks relating to our liquidity or capital resources.
On October 16, 2012, we completed our IPO of 5,175,000 shares of common stock, including 675,000 shares sold as a result of the underwriters’ exercise of their overallotment option, at a price of $17.00 per share. The IPO resulted in net proceeds to the Company from the offering of approximately $81.8 million after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions, and before deducting total estimated expenses in connection with the offering of $4.9 million.
We currently intend to retain all available funds and any future earnings for use in the operation of our business and do not anticipate paying any cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. Any future determination relating to our dividend policy will be made at the discretion of our board of directors, based on our financial condition, results of operations, contractual restrictions, capital requirements, business prospects and other factors our board of directors may deem relevant.
-
As an independent I've seen my downloads stay at about the same level. Perhaps there's been a slight increase, but it's still too early in the month to confirm any significant pattern. Money is definitely down though, sorry to say. :'(
-
So far a narrow majority of indes are saying they have the same or more sales than before, whereas a majority of exclusives are saying their sales are down and none are saying their sales are up.
An awful lot of indes are saying their sales are lower than expected, which is a bit of a surprise though it may just be because of the summer and the holidays.
To me it suggests weak evidence of a shift of sales towards indes in the main collection. Whether the exclusive files have been allocated to higher priced collections than before in large enough numbers to have increased the overall spend (and commission payments) on exclusive files is something that would need a separate survey.
That's one way of looking at it. A narrow majority of indies are at the same or more while a massively overwhelming majority of indies are at the same or lower. I think people are reporting on sales figures rather than downloads (that's my generous view, although I suspect a lot of people just like to say Istock is losing sales at any opportunity whether or not they are contributing there and irregardless of what the statistics say).
I'm inclined to think you are right. It's interesting, though that there isn't one exclusive reporting an increase so far.
Another point is that "significantly down" is heavily in the majority for exclusives, but only just under half for indes. If exclusives were seeing the same sales pattern as indes there should be about three "significantly higher" reports from that number of votes and there aren't any.
-
These types of polls tend to miss those of us that are both exclusive in one category and indie in another...ie someone can be exclusive photographer and indie illustrator...someone with a foot in both doors might be able to add to this. I am both indie and exclusive in that regard.
With that said, my exclusive sales seem the same(not including Getty sales as they haven't been calculated yet). My indie sales I have seen a rise in IS downloads and that has brought in some more $$, but nothing significant and possibly a temporary reaction to the changes (does not include PP sales for same reason as Getty sales)
-
These types of polls tend to miss those of us that are both exclusive in one category and indie in another...ie someone can be exclusive photographer and indie illustrator...someone with a foot in both doors might be able to add to this
Yeah, sorry, I don't see how that can be addressed. In addition, aren't the circumstances for video and illustrations different from those for photos?
-
Yeah, sorry, I don't see how that can be addressed. In addition, aren't the circumstances for video and illustrations different from those for photos?
True, I think I was thinking this was related to collection changes and not the photo price drops...although some of my exclusive content was dropped to main collection and now sells for less...
-
These types of polls tend to miss those of us that are both exclusive in one category and indie in another...ie someone can be exclusive photographer and indie illustrator...someone with a foot in both doors might be able to add to this. I am both indie and exclusive in that regard.
With that said, my exclusive sales seem the same(not including Getty sales as they haven't been calculated yet). My indie sales I have seen a rise in IS downloads and that has brought in some more $$, but nothing significant and possibly a temporary reaction to the changes (does not include PP sales for same reason as Getty sales)
PP and GI sales aren't relevant to this thread, as they're not affected by the recent price changes.
-
Exclusive - with only Sig or Sig+ Purchases are significantly down but I'm earning about the same. New uploads are a complete waste of time!
You have NO Main collection files? How did you accomplish that? You actually didn't have any files in your port with 0 (or in some cases of forced demotion to Main, 1 or 2) DLs? Or did you deactivate all of your demoted files?
I just checked! Only some new uploads have 0 downloads but they went straight into sig. I did delete a whole batch of images in the organised protest earlier this year so there may have been some zero's in that.
-
Exclusive - with only Sig or Sig+ Purchases are significantly down but I'm earning about the same. New uploads are a complete waste of time!
You have NO Main collection files? How did you accomplish that? You actually didn't have any files in your port with 0 (or in some cases of forced demotion to Main, 1 or 2) DLs? Or did you deactivate all of your demoted files?
I just checked! Only some new uploads have 0 downloads but they went straight into sig. I did delete a whole batch of images in the organised protest earlier this year so there may have been some zero's in that.
Right, it was only files from Sep 2012 and earlier with 0 (or 1 or 2) DLs that were demoted.
I feel so inadequate, with almost 20% of my port being demoted to Main. But that doesn't really bother me. It's the > 10% or so that were promoted to Sig+ that hurts ....
-
SERIOUS TIP ::): If your sales at iStock are bad, try with a new name for your portfolio. That might solve all your problems. After all, Yuri's been doing it: His old portfolio with the name Urilux maybe was not doing very well, so he/they tried with Yurilux, but that one didn't help either (Has anyone here tracked his daily sales during the last weeks? -poor). So, today it was time to try a new name: yuri. Just yuri. Now, if that doesn't help even Yuri, then we are all scre*** ;D
-
'
-
Exclusive - with only Sig or Sig+ Purchases are significantly down but I'm earning about the same. New uploads are a complete waste of time!
You have NO Main collection files? How did you accomplish that? You actually didn't have any files in your port with 0 (or in some cases of forced demotion to Main, 1 or 2) DLs? Or did you deactivate all of your demoted files?
I just checked! Only some new uploads have 0 downloads but they went straight into sig. I did delete a whole batch of images in the organised protest earlier this year so there may have been some zero's in that.
Right, it was only files from Sep 2012 and earlier with 0 (or 1 or 2) DLs that were demoted.
I feel so inadequate, with almost 20% of my port being demoted to Main. But that doesn't really bother me. It's the > 10% or so that were promoted to Sig+ that hurts ....
I don't think anyone is a winner, though Indies appear to be doing better than exclusives! Its worrisome. Yet again. For the umpteen time.
-
in other news i just went to my local supermarket and for 1$ i could barely buy one orange or two small apples, and then i was thinking ... what ... people can buy a photo for the price of an orange ! :(
-
My volume on SS is about 4 times higher than the volume on IS (all YTD)
-
0.40$ for a L is getting pretty ridiculous.
-
'
-
0.40$ for a L is getting pretty ridiculous.
You sell XXXL at SS for .025-0.38$ no?
ETA: I guess Shutterstock raised their rates, I got a negative for this. Please do tell me what an XXXL subscription sale goes for these days?
No you are right, but the volume makes up for it, or can make up for it. Isnt it about the check you take home at the end of the month?
But you are right though, I dont like to see my uberlarge 100mp panoramas sell for 0.33 cent. Hence I am trying other things. But its a long and tough road.
-
You sell XXXL at SS for .025-0.38$ no?
ETA: I guess Shutterstock raised their rates, I got a negative for this. Please do tell me what an XXXL subscription sale goes for these days?
My royalty per download is higher on Shutterstock than on istock. And Shutterstock sells like 10 times more.
-
My last several DLs from iS have all been large size where I get exactly $1. That works out to $6.25 paid by the buyer. Most of those images used to be in P+ so I would have made a lot more, although the number of DLs so far this month is better than it has been in quite a while. If sales stay at this level it will be an OK month on iS - not what it was during the best times but much better than the recent past. It would sure be nice to know how PP sales went the past couple of months...
-
Paul,
I went back and checked my numbers and the downloads are about the same, revenue significantly down. I can't find a means to change my vote, but that's okay. Be interesting to run this survey again in three months.
-
0.40$ for a L is getting pretty ridiculous.
You sell XXXL at SS for .025-0.38$ no?
ETA: I guess Shutterstock raised their rates, I got a negative for this. Please do tell me what an XXXL subscription sale goes for these days?
I resize to 5mpx for SS.
-
0.40$ for a L is getting pretty ridiculous.
You sell XXXL at SS for .025-0.38$ no?
ETA: I guess Shutterstock raised their rates, I got a negative for this. Please do tell me what an XXXL subscription sale goes for these days?
That comparison is mis-leading. Because I get $0.33 for subscription sales on SS but $0.28 for subscription sales on iStock. It's just they are called "PP earnings" on iStock and get paid out a month (or more) later.
For single image sales/image packs I get $1.07 or $2.48, sometimes $8 on Shutterstock, and that is what truly compares to the $0.88 or $0.44 for large downloads on iStock.
-
'
-
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) $0.28 per download, for large or small ones. It's just elegantly hidden behind the name "Partner program" but it's not different. About two thirds of my downloads within "the total iStock deal" are coming from this PP, so the average across all iStock downloads is lowered far beyond your calculation.
And yes, there is an inherent difference between subscription sales and single image/image pack sales: If you have to pay separately for each single image, you are very likely to only download images that you are going to use; subscription buyers are far more indiscriminate to download more images than they are actually need because they paid for anyways. Be it for comping, mood boards, or potential future uses.
-
Let me just add, there is indeed a positive aspect I currently observe with the new prices: I rarely had downloads beyond the Large size in the past. Usually about 2-3% of my sales were XL or larger.
In July my XL+ sales are at 12% of my downloads. So even though it's a short period of time, my current assumption is that buyers are buying "rather too large than too small" at those low prices nowadays. So I could (like my assumption with lots of subs sales never going to use) also conclude that many of these downloads are "overpaid" in comparison to their actual use.
ETA: I just pulled the other end of the stats - usually I had 25-30% of my downloads in XS size, in July the number of XS downloads was just 10%. So indeed it seems more clients are going for higher resolutions than they did in the past. I like that trend.
-
0.40$ for a L is getting pretty ridiculous.
The buyer therefore paid somewhere between $0.50 and $0.67 per credit depending on your royalty rate. That seems very low. Was it a subscription sale?
-
0.40$ 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.
-
'
-
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 :)
-
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........
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. >:(
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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 ???
-
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
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1560?esource=50407_iStock_ABC_Wave_2_RNB_EN_em&sp_rid=&sp_mid=5577078)
-
This link just got posted in the iStock forum:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1560?esource=50407_iStock_ABC_Wave_2_RNB_EN_em&sp_rid=&sp_mid=5577078[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1560?esource=50407_iStock_ABC_Wave_2_RNB_EN_em&sp_rid=&sp_mid=5577078[/url])
how sad is that? god!
-
This link just got posted in the iStock forum:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1560?esource=50407_iStock_ABC_Wave_2_RNB_EN_em&sp_rid=&sp_mid=5577078[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1560?esource=50407_iStock_ABC_Wave_2_RNB_EN_em&sp_rid=&sp_mid=5577078[/url])
Its full of false advertising as well.
-
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
-
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. ;)
-
This link just got posted in the iStock forum:
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1560?esource=50407_iStock_ABC_Wave_2_RNB_EN_em&sp_rid=&sp_mid=5577078[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/article_view.php?ID=1560?esource=50407_iStock_ABC_Wave_2_RNB_EN_em&sp_rid=&sp_mid=5577078[/url])
Well that's pretty illuminating. No wonder they can't get their accounting right when apparently nobody there even knows how to divide by two.
Since when is 1 one half of 1, or 7 one half of 18 ::) :P
-
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. ;)
It's cool, they don't deserve any slack.
-
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.
An inability to pay is only 1/2 the problem. The other 1/2 is the fact that they can't manage to get files transferred to the partner sites in the first place.
I'm not much of a fan of the partner program so I can't say I'm too worried about that part of the ongoing iStock fiasco. What is a real insult is the slashing of prices on our files which combined with a 15% royalty means peanuts from here on out. Supposedly they will be moving some of the better selling non-exclusive files into the higher priced collections but at the rate things happen over there it will probably be months from now....assuming they are even able to pull it off.
Too bad. Several months ago iStock looked like the place to be; how things have changed.
I'm done uploading new material there but I'm a small fish so it's no concern of theirs. Hopefully enough indies will be doing the same and, collectively, we can make a small dent in iStock's bottom line.
-
I quit uploading there in January, but the failure to pay PP royalties worries me a great deal. If May and June were average months then I am waiting on a considerable amount of money.
-
No independent contributor now has any incentive to upload new content to IS unless royalties are increased substantially ...
Yes, you would think so. Then again, I have heard this argument for half a decade now with almost any change that has been made. Still many independents are uploading images (though I do know quite a lot who don't).
Maybe this is part of the illusion: While there seems to be more or less agreement between people posting at MSG, there is a huge amount of people who
A) continue uploading but won't mention it because you just don't mention "business as usual"
B) continue uploading but won't mention it because anyone stating they will continue is prone to be bashed here
C) continue uploading but does not read or write on MSG
So I don't believe that iStock is weakening their position and should be afraid not to get any new uploads from independents. Actually right now with the upload limits raised I am watching quite a few huge portfolios being added to iStock these days. Some of them existing contributors with a huge backlog, some of them more or less completely new portfolios with thousands of images each.
-
No independent contributor now has any incentive to upload new content to IS unless royalties are increased substantially ...
Yes, you would think so. Then again, I have heard this argument for half a decade now with almost any change that has been made. Still many independents are uploading images (though I do know quite a lot who don't).
Maybe this is part of the illusion: While there seems to be more or less agreement between people posting at MSG, there is a huge amount of people who
A) continue uploading but won't mention it because you just don't mention "business as usual"
B) continue uploading but won't mention it because anyone stating they will continue is prone to be bashed here
C) continue uploading but does not read or write on MSG
So I don't believe that iStock is weakening their position and should be afraid not to get any new uploads from independents. Actually right now with the upload limits raised I am watching quite a few huge portfolios being added to iStock these days. Some of them existing contributors with a huge backlog, some of them more or less completely new portfolios with thousands of images each.
Since most new images neither get sold nor even seen, it seems to be pretty irrelevant to istock (or contributors) whether anyone uploads or not. It's almost as if the main function of the contributor part of the site is not to receive stock any more but to keep contributors talking about the brand to their friends and colleagues and the file storage is merely an advertising cost.
-
Despite new files going immediately into the abyss, there are 171040 files in the queue at this moment. So they're not all cynics like us, yet; remembering that a cynic is a disappointed optimist.
-
It's bizarre, but for the first time ever I have a gut feeling that not uploading there will not make the slightest difference to my earnings.
I just checked - I've uploaded 60 files there since Dec 12, twenty-two of them up to early Jan, the other half during May, and I've got six sales out of that for a total of about $3.50.
BUT then I went to the PP and found I had made $5.20 there from the 22 Dec-Jan uploads, even though we still haven't got the figures for May and June. I guess once (if) that comes in, I will discover that I'm making seven or eight times as much from PP (which really means TS) with my recent uploads as I am from iS.
So it seems that TS - even before the price change - had become a more important agency for new uploads than iS.
And that, in turn, makes me wonder what percentage of the monthly payout from iS is now for the partner prog... It might be far more significant than I've been thinking.
-
Since most new images neither get sold nor even seen, it seems to be pretty irrelevant to istock (or contributors) whether anyone uploads or not
Well, you shouldn't forget that one of the main parts for non-exclusives is the partner program. I do sell new files quite well through the partner program. So there still is a certain incentive to upload new image to iStock. I do sell new files on iStock itself occasionally as well, though certainly not as many as a few years ago. However, these changes are happening during the usual summer slowdown and there are other changes announced for the near future. I am not sure how all of this is going to look at the end but I think we need to wait at least until September to see how customers and contributors are reacting to the changes during the next sales season.
-
Yup, I just worked that out - to my surprise - in the post above yours, Michael. It looks as though resuming uploading might be worth $400 a year to me.
-
My sales are way down even for this time of year.
The reason...
My best selling, former E+, now moved up to Vetta, no sales.
My steady but not unique or artistic images that have been moved up to S+ few or no sales.
As for files moved down to the main collection I believe I have only made 3 sales in these areas.
-
Yup, I just worked that out - to my surprise - in the post above yours, Michael. It looks as though resuming uploading might be worth $400 a year to me.
Well - only if you eventually get that money... . ;)
-
Yup, I just worked that out - to my surprise - in the post above yours, Michael. It looks as though resuming uploading might be worth $400 a year to me.
Well - only if you eventually get that money... . ;)
Quite, it's purely theoretical. I'm not planning on doing it.
-
I deactivated all but one of my files back on D-Day. I left one, just to keep the account active and monitor changes, and it sells every few days. Since the price cuts, it continues to sell, but the average price is less than half of what it was.
I'd say that the effect of the price cuts is that the prices have been cut.
-
They were up and down in the weeks leading up to 4th July, but since then my sales have nosedived like I've never seen before. Currently flatlining on less than a third of normal July sales.
-
Now that we're more than half way through the month it would appear that my sales volume is noticeably up since the price reductions. As things stand my downloads are likely to be 25-30% higher than in June ... but obviously for a lot less money.
-
Now that we're more than half way through the month it would appear that my sales volume is noticeably up since the price reductions. As things stand my downloads are likely to be 25-30% higher than in June ... but obviously for a lot less money.
I'm still well up - in fact I've now sold more files this month than I sold in March and I'm about on par with April and May, so I seem to be about 50% up. But, of course, for less money. The vote also still seems to be consistent with a pattern of some shifting of sales away from exclusives towards independents.
-
Now that we're more than half way through the month it would appear that my sales volume is noticeably up since the price reductions. As things stand my downloads are likely to be 25-30% higher than in June ... but obviously for a lot less money.
I'm still well up - in fact I've now sold more files this month than I sold in March and I'm about on par with April and May, so I seem to be about 50% up. But, of course, for less money. The vote also still seems to be consistent with a pattern of some shifting of sales away from exclusives towards independents.
Plus, iS is running a major ad campaign.
-
Now that we're more than half way through the month it would appear that my sales volume is noticeably up since the price reductions. As things stand my downloads are likely to be 25-30% higher than in June ... but obviously for a lot less money.
I'm still well up - in fact I've now sold more files this month than I sold in March and I'm about on par with April and May, so I seem to be about 50% up. But, of course, for less money. The vote also still seems to be consistent with a pattern of some shifting of sales away from exclusives towards independents.
Add me to the group. Sales are running around 30% up for July, but money is roughly 50% down.
-
Now that we're more than half way through the month it would appear that my sales volume is noticeably up since the price reductions. As things stand my downloads are likely to be 25-30% higher than in June ... but obviously for a lot less money.
I'm still well up - in fact I've now sold more files this month than I sold in March and I'm about on par with April and May, so I seem to be about 50% up. But, of course, for less money. The vote also still seems to be consistent with a pattern of some shifting of sales away from exclusives towards independents.
Add me to the group. Sales are running around 30% up for July, but money is roughly 50% down.
I wonder if the fact we are all old-timers is in some way significant, since many others are saying their sales are down.
-
I wonder if the fact we are all old-timers is in some way significant, since many others are saying their sales are down.
It's possible. Seems like newer stuff isn't selling, so by being indie (cheap!) and having a lot of older stuff, maybe we are at some slight advantage?
Either way, any advantage in best match is worthless if it doesn't translate into more money.
Dollarwise I am in schedule to be down by roughly half. I had hoped PP earnings would mitigate that, but looks like that's not going to happen.
I have joked before about Istock being in its death throes, but now I am seriously starting to worry that may be the case.
-
I am waaaaaay down in the number of sales and, of course, in $. Unless there is a miraculous turnaround this will be my worst month since joining iStock 5 years ago. That combined with the fact that they seem incapable of getting my files into the PP my iS related income will become insignificant. If nothing else it will make it an easy decision to terminate my account, which may be the only way I get my remaining balance....$7 shy of payout.
-
I have currently sold as many files so far this month as the whole of last month. But I have earned less than HALF of what I earned last month. Suffice to say, this new change is NOT for the better.
Add to that STILL waiting for PP sales and iStock are certainly not looking good at the moment.
-
Add me to the group. Sales are running around 30% up for July, but money is roughly 50% down.
Same here. Worst month I've had in a long time! >:(
-
I know this isn't a complete survey of what has happened since the price changes - and perhaps there's someone happy that their income (not just sales) is through the roof since the changes, but I haven't heard anyone say that so far - but the amount that iStock loses when an indie contributor's income is cut in half is huge. I know everyone knows that, but I think I'm slow on the uptake :)
So if an indie contributor (let's say at 16% to pick one of the royalty levels) earned $160 last month and that is cut in half to $80 this month, that means iStock's revenue of $840 las month is halved to $420, if I have this right? How can this not be a huge revenue hit for them, and how many months will they keep doing this in the hope that enough additional sales will materialize to make them better off (I know they don't care about contributors being better off)
-
I voted about the same based on the question. For me, they dropped from a 2nd or 3rd place agency to 5th or 6th place at the end of 2008 and never recovered.
-
I'm having my BME at iStock...previously May 2013 was my BME. I have only been in the game since 2011, so I'm pretty new.
-
I know this isn't a complete survey of what has happened since the price changes - and perhaps there's someone happy that their income (not just sales) is through the roof since the changes, but I haven't heard anyone say that so far - but the amount that iStock loses when an indie contributor's income is cut in half is huge. I know everyone knows that, but I think I'm slow on the uptake :)
So if an indie contributor (let's say at 16% to pick one of the royalty levels) earned $160 last month and that is cut in half to $80 this month, that means iStock's revenue of $840 las month is halved to $420, if I have this right? How can this not be a huge revenue hit for them, and how many months will they keep doing this in the hope that enough additional sales will materialize to make them better off (I know they don't care about contributors being better off)
Nothing wrong with your maths JoAnne. Istock are taking a massive hit to their own revenue too. I guess, from their data, they concluded that they had no choice to do so if they were to save the business. Such was the decline in sales that contributors were reporting, had it continued at the same rate, they'd have had virtually no sales at all within a couple of years.
-
I know this isn't a complete survey of what has happened since the price changes - and perhaps there's someone happy that their income (not just sales) is through the roof since the changes, but I haven't heard anyone say that so far - but the amount that iStock loses when an indie contributor's income is cut in half is huge. I know everyone knows that, but I think I'm slow on the uptake :)
So if an indie contributor (let's say at 16% to pick one of the royalty levels) earned $160 last month and that is cut in half to $80 this month, that means iStock's revenue of $840 las month is halved to $420, if I have this right? How can this not be a huge revenue hit for them, and how many months will they keep doing this in the hope that enough additional sales will materialize to make them better off (I know they don't care about contributors being better off)
One thing that helps mitigate that loss is the "promotion" of many exclusive files to S+ (or Vetta). Perhaps iStock calculated that they could take the hit in "demoted file" income (mostly independents) by offsetting it with "promoted file" income (mostly exclusives). Certainly they could make the necessary calculation and "promote" the necessary number of files to make that happen since they now have total control over what file goes in what collection.
-
I know this isn't a complete survey of what has happened since the price changes - and perhaps there's someone happy that their income (not just sales) is through the roof since the changes, but I haven't heard anyone say that so far - but the amount that iStock loses when an indie contributor's income is cut in half is huge. I know everyone knows that, but I think I'm slow on the uptake :)
So if an indie contributor (let's say at 16% to pick one of the royalty levels) earned $160 last month and that is cut in half to $80 this month, that means iStock's revenue of $840 las month is halved to $420, if I have this right? How can this not be a huge revenue hit for them, and how many months will they keep doing this in the hope that enough additional sales will materialize to make them better off (I know they don't care about contributors being better off)
One thing that helps mitigate that loss is the "promotion" of many exclusive files to S+ (or Vetta). Perhaps iStock calculated that they could take the hit in "demoted file" income (mostly independents) by offsetting it with "promoted file" income (mostly exclusives). Certainly they could make the necessary calculation and "promote" the necessary number of files to make that happen since they now have total control over what file goes in what collection.
But they have no control over the direction the buyer goes in, which makes it look like a huge gamble - especially as their current advertising drive is based on being cheap.
-
One thing that helps mitigate that loss is the "promotion" of many exclusive files to S+ (or Vetta). Perhaps iStock calculated that they could take the hit in "demoted file" income (mostly independents) by offsetting it with "promoted file" income (mostly exclusives). Certainly they could make the necessary calculation and "promote" the necessary number of files to make that happen since they now have total control over what file goes in what collection.
But they have no control over the direction the buyer goes in, which makes it look like a huge gamble - especially as their current advertising drive is based on being cheap.
Not to mention that they take a much higher percentage of each indie sale than they get from exclusive sales.
Any way you look at it, they are taking a huge financial hit.
-
" if I have this right? How can this not be a huge revenue hit for them"
They'll make it back next year when everyone drops 2 royalty levels.
-
One thing that helps mitigate that loss is the "promotion" of many exclusive files to S+ (or Vetta). Perhaps iStock calculated that they could take the hit in "demoted file" income (mostly independents) by offsetting it with "promoted file" income (mostly exclusives).
From the complaints I'm hearing from some exclusives (worst week/month since (some long ago year)), I don't hear a lot of happy exclusives. There may be some, but they're keeping awfully quiet.
-
One thing that helps mitigate that loss is the "promotion" of many exclusive files to S+ (or Vetta). Perhaps iStock calculated that they could take the hit in "demoted file" income (mostly independents) by offsetting it with "promoted file" income (mostly exclusives).
From the complaints I'm hearing from some exclusives (worst week/month since (some long ago year)), I don't hear a lot of happy exclusives. There may be some, but they're keeping awfully quiet.
May be a forced silence. Shut up or get ejected. ::)
Reinforces my decision to avoid the forums. :P
-
" if I have this right? How can this not be a huge revenue hit for them"
They'll make it back next year when everyone drops 2 royalty levels.
This is unfortunately true. It'll be touch and go whether I make my RC target this year, whereas 2 years ago I tripled it.
A royalty cut will be the last straw for me I think - finally spurring me into decisive action.
-
" if I have this right? How can this not be a huge revenue hit for them"
They'll make it back next year when everyone drops 2 royalty levels.
This is unfortunately true. It'll be touch and go whether I make my RC target this year, whereas 2 years ago I tripled it.
A royalty cut will be the last straw for me I think - finally spurring me into decisive action.
Actually, it is not true at all that they would recover the money they had lost in that way. It doesn't make mathematical sense, and I'm sure Sean knows that. At best, the levels provide a very minor cushion for them against falling exclusive sales. They are taking a very heavy hit on the pricing of the main collection. It's far more than the 50% they are advertising considering that three-quarters of my latest sales were in the Photo+ collection, not in the standard independent collection.
-
One thing that helps mitigate that loss is the "promotion" of many exclusive files to S+ (or Vetta). Perhaps iStock calculated that they could take the hit in "demoted file" income (mostly independents) by offsetting it with "promoted file" income (mostly exclusives).
From the complaints I'm hearing from some exclusives (worst week/month since (some long ago year)), I don't hear a lot of happy exclusives. There may be some, but they're keeping awfully quiet.
May be a forced silence. Shut up or get ejected. ::)
Reinforces my decision to avoid the forums. :P
I'm not talking about the IS forums - they're dead. There are offsite groups for uncensored chat.
-
latest from me: DLs up 30% $$ down 32% since the new pricing in June
-
" if I have this right? How can this not be a huge revenue hit for them"
They'll make it back next year when everyone drops 2 royalty levels.
Exactly.
-
latest from me: DLs up 30% $$ down 32% since the new pricing in June
I've had the exact opposite experience. DL's are down 50%, but $ is up 100% so in the end I'm making the same money with 1/2 the DL's. Also, only old files continue to sell. Nothing I've uploaded this year or last year sells much at all.
-
gave up on istock long ago -- avg $10 or less /month with 800 images in portfolio. their silly and tedious submission process means they'd have to do a lot better in sales before i'd bother to wasyte any more time submitting
-
latest from me: DLs up 30% $$ down 32% since the new pricing in June
I've had the exact opposite experience. DL's are down 50%, but $ is up 100% so in the end I'm making the same money with 1/2 the DL's. Also, only old files continue to sell. Nothing I've uploaded this year or last year sells much at all.
My downloads are down 50% starting last month. About the same as early 2008 levels which is when I was just getting started. Money is about the same as the rest of this year so no drop there. Problem is downloads keep dropping and have been for years. If something doesn't change at some point money will start dropping too. Or downloads will keep heading toward zero.
-
latest from me: DLs up 30% $$ down 32% since the new pricing in June
I've had the exact opposite experience. DL's are down 50%, but $ is up 100% so in the end I'm making the same money with 1/2 the DL's. Also, only old files continue to sell. Nothing I've uploaded this year or last year sells much at all.
I'm assuming this means you are exclusive?
Most of the people claiming downloads are up and royalties down are indies. It's a fairly inevitable result of the price slash on our images.
Anyone know if upgrading some of our bestsellers to higher price bands is still in the works?
-
Anyone know if upgrading some of our bestsellers to higher price bands is still in the works?
that is bizarre, you don't have a single file there :o
-
Anyone know if upgrading some of our bestsellers to higher price bands is still in the works?
that is bizarre, you don't have a single file there :o
True. AFAIK no indies do.
Originally it was talked about putting some indie content into Sig and S+, but no movement there and haven't heard it mentioned in a few weeks.
-
Anyone know if upgrading some of our bestsellers to higher price bands is still in the works?
that is bizarre, you don't have a single file there :o
True. AFAIK no indies do.
Originally it was talked about putting some indie content into Sig and S+, but no movement there and haven't heard it mentioned in a few weeks.
iStock ;D
-
Anyone know if upgrading some of our bestsellers to higher price bands is still in the works?
that is bizarre, you don't have a single file there :o
True. AFAIK no indies do.
Originally it was talked about putting some indie content into Sig and S+, but no movement there and haven't heard it mentioned in a few weeks.
Apparently/allegedly they're going to tweak the exclusive files, which if my port is anything to go by has been really bizarrely assigned in many cases, then work on the indies.
-
Apparently/allegedly they're going to tweak the exclusive files, which if my port is anything to go by has been really bizarrely assigned in many cases, then work on the indies.
THanks for the update Liz. So this is still in the works, theoretically at least :)
-
I'm selling 40% more than in June, but with a significant drop in profits, of course.
However, I think the images being so cheap, now customers buy larger sizes.
I miss Photo + ...
-
Apparently/allegedly they're going to tweak the exclusive files, which if my port is anything to go by has been really bizarrely assigned in many cases, then work on the indies.
THanks for the update Liz. So this is still in the works, theoretically at least :)
Except they said all our files would be for sale forever at rock bottom prices
No doubt Liz's files have been sorted by a computer following its GIGO instructions (or is that acronym 20 years out of date?). That's the problem, they WILL screw up any computer-run sort. At least, that WILL BE the problem if they ever decide to lift anything we have out of the main collection.
Every one of my P+ files was there for a logical reason, I know that if they use a computer to reassign things they will screw up. Guaranteed. They've farqued up one of the few things that really worked well, which is letting suppliers use their knowledge to promote a limited portion of their portfolio.
-
However, I think the images being so cheap, now customers buy larger sizes.
I think that is probably right, too. But they are still paying a fraction of what they paid before for smaller files. So we lose, but not as badly as we might have expected.
-
Apparently/allegedly they're going to tweak the exclusive files, which if my port is anything to go by has been really bizarrely assigned in many cases, then work on the indies.
Except they said all our files would be for sale forever at rock bottom prices
I'm not defending them, nor am I for a minute suggesting that they'll definitely do what Lobo said they'll do >:(, but they didn't say 'all indie files would be for sale forever at rock bottom prices', but they did say that 'half of iStock's files would be available for ever at half price'.
So they invited people to upload 999 files a week, and we see what is getting accepted. So soon they'll have plenty of files to offer at rock bottom prices (even if no-one wants them). I don't really see the point of that - bait and switch maybe? - and there's a clear Middle Way between pixel perfect and 'anything goes'; but better indie files should get out of the Main Collection 'sometime'. Just don't hold your breath. ::)
Remember also that lots of Exclusive files were also dropped to Main Collection.
But as has been suggested already, maybe 'other plans are afoot'. ???
-
No doubt Liz's files have been sorted by a computer following its GIGO instructions (or is that acronym 20 years out of date?).
Nope, I heard it used within the past hour in a CreativeLIVE tutorial.
-
but they didn't say 'all indie files would be for sale forever at rock bottom prices', but they did say that 'half of iStock's files would be available for ever at half price'.
So they invited people to upload 999 files a week, and we see what is getting accepted. So soon they'll have plenty of files to offer at rock bottom prices (even if no-one wants them).
Yes, true. I might possibly be being a bit cynical for some reason...
But I do remain, you know, a bit cynical. It would mean the computer section springing into efficient action at some point if they are ever to sort millions of images and assign them accurately to the categories that suit them.
Yup, still feeling a bit cynical...
-
Except they said all our files would be for sale forever at rock bottom prices
I had taken their "1/2 our images at 1/2 price forever" promise to mean that they would continue to have half the collection at the lowest prices, but not that it would necessarily always being the SAME images that are there now. Theoretically, they could bump up the best indie content and bump down the lowest value exclusive content, as long as they continue to have half the collection at the bargain prices.
Maybe I misread them or am giving them too much credit. I don't know. It's just how I interpreted it.
-
"Except they said all our files would be for sale forever at rock bottom prices"
Yeah, they love playing games. http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/16/half-the-price-forever-really/ (http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/16/half-the-price-forever-really/)
Other problem is 'half price' of what? You can't just say they're 'half price', since it isn't a sale where you can say 'this week, half price'. Since this is now the price 'forever'.
-
'
-
"Except they said all our files would be for sale forever at rock bottom prices"
Yeah, they love playing games. [url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/16/half-the-price-forever-really/[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/16/half-the-price-forever-really/[/url])
Other problem is 'half price' of what? You can't just say they're 'half price', since it isn't a sale where you can say 'this week, half price'. Since this is now the price 'forever'.
I know you aren't arguing about semantics.
he needs to move on. not sure why he always needs to perpetually blog about an agency he is no longer part of. one would think he'd put his effort promoting stocksy and his work by blogging positive great fun happy cheery stuff about stocksy and his work, not always dragging istock or anything getty through the mud to promote stocksy. it really reads and comes across as vengeful and somewhat self righteous.
-
Its not forever as they made a cheeky comment about their lawyers saying they cant really promise that legally
(http://i.istockimg.com/generic_image_view/201345/201345)
-
sale numbers are down and $ are 75% down so far this month.
Now not only are they the lowest % commission they're also slashed the prices.
Awesome work Istock !
I hope they don't win any customers back at all.
-
"Except they said all our files would be for sale forever at rock bottom prices"
Yeah, they love playing games. [url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/16/half-the-price-forever-really/[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/16/half-the-price-forever-really/[/url])
Other problem is 'half price' of what? You can't just say they're 'half price', since it isn't a sale where you can say 'this week, half price'. Since this is now the price 'forever'.
I know you aren't arguing about semantics.
he needs to move on. not sure why he always needs to perpetually blog about an agency he is no longer part of. one would think he'd put his effort promoting stocksy and his work by blogging positive great fun happy cheery stuff about stocksy and his work, not always dragging istock or anything getty through the mud to promote stocksy. it really reads and comes across as vengeful and somewhat self righteous.
I totally disagree, if there is something wrong/false and leading buyers in a fraudulent way I believe we should tell them what is going on, Sean is doing that in a polite way and of course advertising stocksy, don't see a problem with it
-
Its not forever as they made a cheeky comment about their lawyers saying they cant really promise that legally
([url]http://i.istockimg.com/generic_image_view/201345/201345[/url])
It said the lawyers said they can't promise "infinity" but they did actually promise "forever" because the word is there.
I doubt if any court in the world would accept that you can say something and then just adding "but our lawyers said we can't say a word like that" has the effect of not making the statement in the first place.
Does anybody really believe that I could write that a famous film star I name "is a thief a pervert and a paedophile" (but the lawyers say I can't say that) and I would be safe from prosecution?
Come on!
Or how about "We'll give $50 in cash to everyone who visits our shop (but the laywers said we can't say we're going to give you 50 x $1 bills!).
The message that sends to me is "we don't care about our legal advice, we're going to say it anyway, just in a slightly different form".
I wonder if announcing something and saying it contradicts the legal advice you have had doesn't even make things worse for you.
In passing - the message also says to me that the next price rises will be a rise in the price per credit. Then they can say it isn't a price rise because the number of credits is still the same - the old Fotolia trick of using a variable quantity as a baseline.
-
http://www.creativebloq.com/photography/istockphoto-slashes-its-prices-long-term-7133599 (http://www.creativebloq.com/photography/istockphoto-slashes-its-prices-long-term-7133599)
-
"I know you aren't arguing about semantics. "
It's hardly semantics. It's trickery and false advertising.
-
If forever and infinity are basically the same then ROFL... :)
-
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?
That is problem today with new generations, they want to be "in game" now or never...
World crisis is the result...
-
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?
That is problem today with new generations, they want to be "in game" now or never...
World crisis is the result...
I'm sorry do you know my age? Poor assumption. That is the problem with you old head micrstockers, always making assumptions and you all just seem bitter. Im sorry the days of making $$$ for mediocre work is over. Yes, I am new to selling images in this fashion being in only since 2011. I've only recently put files up on Shutterstock a month ago. I have been shooting professional photography since 2001. Get off your high horse.
-
Its not forever as they made a cheeky comment about their lawyers saying they cant really promise that legally
I believe their definition of "forever" is "until the current manager fails and is replaced". I expect it to happen this year. Then we will find out that 1/2 the price is not sustainable.
-
Saying forever is just a poor move. It's first off a promise they can't keep unless they don't plan on being around long term.
-
As a web designer (who buy on IS) and contributor on IS i believe this move is great to give back in this "shop" many low budget bloggers.
But at the same time have made impossible for many to remain exclusive.
The price difference from main collection and signature+ files ( where exclusives have their better files ) is too huge (10 X ) and the new price slider is too much in evidence with the $$ symbol. Customers are not fools....and everyone of us when have a large choice where to buy uses very often the cheaper point of the slider. Usually buying even the largest size (being now very cheap ).
So for exclusive will come an unsustainable state of things....and customers will buy more and more cheap files causing the rise on the best match on no-exclusive content.
You can image the future.
-
But at the same time have made impossible for many to remain exclusive.
On the other hand, this price cut could deter exclusives from leaving. I reckon exclusives could now expect at least 75% drop in IS earnings when going independent, a big hit while uploading to other sites and waiting for new portfolios to establish. Maybe that was part of the plan!
-
I see they've now modified the headline, so that the files are half price "with credits." So if you buy without credits they're not half price? I don't see any legal disclaimers on the page.
I can't believe this wasn't reviewed by Getty's legal department before it went live. (I write this as a person who creates advertising headlines for a living.)
-
sale numbers are down and $ are 75% down so far this month.
Now not only are they the lowest % commission they're also slashed the prices.
Awesome work Istock !
I hope they don't win any customers back at all.
I don't know if they'll win any customers back, they might. But, what will probably happen is indies will stop uploading new content (I certainly have) which could affect them, albeit in a small way, in the long run.
-
If, as they have said, they move non-selling images down into main, and at the same time move better selling images up from main, then they will still be able to say that half their images are at 1/2 price.
They haven't said it will be the same half :)
-
If, as they have said, they move non-selling images down into main, and at the same time move better selling images up from main, then they will still be able to say that half their images are at 1/2 price.
They haven't said it will be the same half :)
If that's their intention, lets hope they get going on it. The income drop is a real hardship on indies.
-
"Except they said all our files would be for sale forever at rock bottom prices"
Yeah, they love playing games. [url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/16/half-the-price-forever-really/[/url] ([url]http://www.seanlockephotography.com/2013/07/16/half-the-price-forever-really/[/url])
Other problem is 'half price' of what? You can't just say they're 'half price', since it isn't a sale where you can say 'this week, half price'. Since this is now the price 'forever'.
I know you aren't arguing about semantics.
he needs to move on. not sure why he always needs to perpetually blog about an agency he is no longer part of. one would think he'd put his effort promoting stocksy and his work by blogging positive great fun happy cheery stuff about stocksy and his work, not always dragging istock or anything getty through the mud to promote stocksy. it really reads and comes across as vengeful and somewhat self righteous.
I totally disagree, if there is something wrong/false and leading buyers in a fraudulent way I believe we should tell them what is going on, Sean is doing that in a polite way and of course advertising stocksy, don't see a problem with it
if "he" or you are so sure about this being fraudulent then let him or both of you contact a lawyer and sue them. i see this as nothing more than being bitter. i personally find it peculiar that "he" has so much time to creep everything IS does, what getty does, and even more so where yuri's images are just to promote stocksy. that is plain obsessive man.
i am only trying to point out that you don't need to creep agencies or individual shooters to promote yourself or another agency you believe in. it's sort of getting a bit tiring. surely there is enough merit on this other agency that you don't need to knock individual shooters and/or agencies.
you can call it polite, that is fair enough, i find it rather tasteless and in the case of knocking/creeping individual shooters rather disrespectful and full of arrogance.
-
The 'credits' things is interesting. Have they now shifted to pointing out the huge discrepancy between the credit price and the cash price on main collection files? Or is it still a confusing reference to moving the independent files to the value, I mean main, collection more than a month ago?
-
What is tiring is the long parade of awful business decisions, broken promises and falling returns from iStock. If that stopped, so would the complaining.
Changes in iStock's behavior (over which I'm not holding my breath), not complaints that "you're not being fair" from the few remaining iStock fans is the only way to turn around people's view of them.
-
You wonder if there is no PR manager on staff.
However PR is mostly for the buyers, not the suppliers.
I would love to be a fly on the wall at IS
-
What is tiring is the long parade of awful business decisions, broken promises and falling returns from iStock. If that stopped, so would the complaining.
Changes in iStock's behavior (over which I'm not holding my breath), not complaints that "you're not being fair" from the few remaining iStock fans is the only way to turn around people's view of them.
i for one am not a big fan of the decisions IS/Getty make. that said, i think the industry as a whole is very messed up. as i have said for years, and will say it again, microstock/internet/technology has thrown the whole industry into a complete free fall in terms of the respect images deserve, in particular the usage fees, and even more particular the fees that microstock allowed to be the norm and a new generation of photographer that thought is was cool to sell a photo for such a fee, multiple times to make money. once upon a time images were worth something, they no longer are. once upon a time there were editors, there no longer are.
this is not to get into the past versus the present conversation, nor is it a micro versus trad conversation. i've been in this game for too many years, well before Getty, and it is my observation that the combo of the ease in which one can simply put photos online for sale has brought on a whole new breed of stock photographers, for better or worse.
i personally don't know too many shooters micro or trad that are happy with the way the industry is going, which is "corporate". these so called agencies know we are a dime a dozen, they know the industry now has a new benchmark of selling your images for pennies. there is simply an over saturation of imagery on the market from too many sources, both old sources and new sources.
the result is, when sean steps up to the plate (and thanks for that by the way) as he did while one of the top sellers at IS, they canned him. justified or not, it was a sh!t move, and that is what the industry has become. we are all in this sh!t storm together, and unfortunately no amount of complaining or mud slinging is going to change a thing.
i don't like it any more than most, but my gut tells me it is going to get worse both in terms of sales as individuals and the reward we deserve. let's face the facts, bruce sold out and made millions by getty buying him out, and he is not the first agency to have made millions from Getty by selling out by the way, the SS guy is worth a billion, and the next move will be making shareholders happy, not shooters, getty has been sold twice now, for billions... and through all of this these companies have been incredibly profitable.
this whole fiasco is my worst nightmare as i have watched the value of my imagery and hard work plummet in the last ten years or so.
i personally don't see a reversal of fortune coming any time soon, whether you are micro, macro, indie, or exclusive.
i think this is something we all need to accept.
-
You wonder if there is no PR manager on staff.
I dn't want to be spun any more lies and false promises.