MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

iStock sales VOLUME since the start of Jy?

Independent - Significantly up
Independent - About the same
Independent - Significantly down
Exclusive - Significantly up
Exclusive - About the same
Exclusive - Significantly down

Author Topic: Istock sales since price changes  (Read 35266 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: July 09, 2013, 13:36 »
0
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

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.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2013, 14:17 by gbalex »


« Reply #51 on: July 09, 2013, 13:48 »
+1
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.  :'(

« Reply #52 on: July 09, 2013, 14:02 »
+1
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.

« Last Edit: July 09, 2013, 14:16 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #53 on: July 09, 2013, 14:08 »
0
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)
« Last Edit: July 09, 2013, 14:12 by dingles »

« Reply #54 on: July 09, 2013, 14:10 »
0
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?

« Reply #55 on: July 09, 2013, 14:14 »
0
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...

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #56 on: July 09, 2013, 14:18 »
+1
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.

Reef

  • website ready 2026 :)
« Reply #57 on: July 09, 2013, 18:48 »
+1
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.

KB

« Reply #58 on: July 09, 2013, 22:11 »
0
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 ....

« Reply #59 on: July 09, 2013, 23:50 »
+1
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

« Reply #60 on: July 10, 2013, 00:11 »
0
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:03 by Audi 5000 »

Reef

  • website ready 2026 :)
« Reply #61 on: July 10, 2013, 01:26 »
0
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.

« Reply #62 on: July 10, 2013, 02:06 »
+5
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 ! :(

« Reply #63 on: July 10, 2013, 10:20 »
+1
My volume on SS is about 4 times higher than the volume on IS (all YTD)

« Reply #64 on: July 10, 2013, 22:29 »
0
0.40$ for a L is getting pretty ridiculous.

« Reply #65 on: July 10, 2013, 23:09 »
-2
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:03 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #66 on: July 11, 2013, 05:41 »
0
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.

« Reply #67 on: July 11, 2013, 06:16 »
+3

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.

« Reply #68 on: July 11, 2013, 07:42 »
0
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...

« Reply #69 on: July 11, 2013, 07:49 »
0
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.

« Reply #70 on: July 11, 2013, 13:06 »
+2
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.

« Reply #71 on: July 11, 2013, 13:10 »
+4
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.

« Reply #72 on: July 11, 2013, 13:28 »
-2
'
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 12:03 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #73 on: July 11, 2013, 14:13 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 14:16 by MichaelJayFoto »

« Reply #74 on: July 11, 2013, 14:23 »
+1
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.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 14:26 by MichaelJayFoto »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
7 Replies
4534 Views
Last post March 07, 2012, 03:36
by Konstantin Sutyagin
11 Replies
4962 Views
Last post January 25, 2013, 11:39
by cascoly
2 Replies
2175 Views
Last post October 10, 2014, 09:58
by grace
7 Replies
4493 Views
Last post August 21, 2017, 16:24
by niktol
25 Replies
5476 Views
Last post May 30, 2022, 21:23
by Milleflore

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors