Author Topic: It's not just Alexa. (Read 12245 times)

Whiz · « **on:** August 16, 2008, 20:31 »

If you go to Alexa's website, you'll see that iStockphoto's ranking has been plummeting for a few months. Some people say that Alexa changed their search methods or something to that effect, which explains the drop. But it's dropping with these other website ranking companies as well. I'm not saying that it's nothing more than summer slowdown, but it's interesting to observe. Time will tell.

Alexa alternatives:

http://www.quantcast.com/
http://www.compete.com/

khoj.badami · « **Reply #1 on:** August 16, 2008, 22:41 »

Ohh my God! I just looked at the istock Alexa graph! Its a steep steep fall.

Who do you suspect is eating istock's traffic.

Would love to hear some opinions!!

bittersweet · « **Reply #2 on:** August 16, 2008, 23:36 »

Don't at least two of these count only those visitors who have installed their proprietary toolbar? And one of the "alternatives" you listed only measure U.S. traffic?

But I'm sure you're right that the end is near. With all the new posts being started about Cutcaster, I bet they are going to take the microstock world by storm.

Seriously though, my numbers are not correlating with these traffic numbers at all, not by a long shot. I'm not really going to be all that concerned as long as my paycheck is roughly the same (or more) at the end of every month. When THAT number drops off, then I'll be concerned.

ericfoltz · « **Reply #3 on:** August 16, 2008, 23:51 »

Just a couple of thoughts about all of these stats:

1) If you have the largest percentage of market share, you'll probably see more dramatic changes when there are dips in the economy (especially if the bulk of your buyers are in the US where the economy is pretty dismal right now).

2) I don't see a corresponding rise in traffic at any of the other sites that would lead me to believe the IS customers are going to the main competition.

3) The new sites do show some growth but this is alot like the new contributors who post huge growth percentages when they first start. If you start with no traffic, then any traffic makes a dramatic increase in your stats.

I personally think the economy is what is driving the downturn. Every business is being affected and many small businesses (the bulk of micro customers) are going under.

Hopefully when/if it turns around, sales will go back up.

DanP68 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 16, 2008, 23:59 »

The whole thing seems a little wonky to me.

My sales have dropped quite a bit at IS, and there are plenty of other contributors (mainly non-exclusive) observing the same trend. But not anything near the magnitude of what these charts show.

What is particularly interesting is that the trend happens over time. If it was being caused by a change in the IS website, the dropoff would be instantaneous. I really don't know what to make of it, and I've used these analytic charts for years.

ericfoltz · « **Reply #5 on:** August 17, 2008, 00:14 »

Housing crisis and rising gas prices both started hitting the news and making an impact right around late Feb/early March.

thesentinel · « **Reply #6 on:** August 17, 2008, 01:38 »

This from quantcast, which is derived from their stats, does it accurately describe what you regard as your target microstock buyer?

Site Description

Istockphoto.com is a top 5,000 site that reaches over 1.3 million U.S. monthly people. The site is popular among a teen audience.The typical visitor visits cartoonstock.com, uses Photobucket, and reads celebritywonder.com.

dnavarrojr · « **Reply #7 on:** August 17, 2008, 08:33 »

I asked a friend who works as an editor for a magazine what they use and he said they did not renew their corporate account with IS when it expired, they moved over to SS. He says they got a better deal from SS and there is more to choose from.

bittersweet · « **Reply #8 on:** August 17, 2008, 12:01 »

I work for a magazine too, and we use istockphoto exclusively. I'm also pretty sure most of us have outgrown our teens and I haven't visited cartoonstock.com in at least a couple of weeks.

Whiz · « **Reply #9 on:** August 17, 2008, 12:58 »

Quote from: bittersweet on August 16, 2008, 23:36

Don't at least two of these count only those visitors who have installed their proprietary toolbar? And one of the "alternatives" you listed only measure U.S. traffic?

But I'm sure you're right that the end is near. With all the new posts being started about Cutcaster, I bet they are going to take the microstock world by storm.

Seriously though, my numbers are not correlating with these traffic numbers at all, not by a long shot. I'm not really going to be all that concerned as long as my paycheck is roughly the same (or more) at the end of every month. When THAT number drops off, then I'll be concerned.

I never said the end was near.

Jimi King · « **Reply #10 on:** August 17, 2008, 13:32 »

It may be because iStock seemed to have pulled the same nasty trick they did a few months back on overseas customers. It's no longer a dollar a credit for UK buyers. 10 credits costs £8.63 (just over $16). I certainly don't buy from them any more. If I need an iStock image I wait until I've got enough credits from my downloads and convert them. Then I get one for one.

bittersweet · « **Reply #11 on:** August 17, 2008, 15:20 »

Quote from: Jimi King on August 17, 2008, 13:32

It may be because iStock seemed to have pulled the same nasty trick they did a few months back on overseas customers. It's no longer a dollar a credit for UK buyers. 10 credits costs £8.63 (just over $16). I certainly don't buy from them any more. If I need an iStock image I wait until I've got enough credits from my downloads and convert them. Then I get one for one.

10 credits costs $14.00 for US buyers, not $10. The smallest packages haven't been "a dollar a credit" for a couple of years now. You also always have the option of purchasing in dollar instead of pound.

But yes, the best discount is the contributor convert to credit feature, where it is still a dollar a credit, and you can buy only what you need rather than a set package.

bittersweet · « **Reply #12 on:** August 17, 2008, 15:22 »

Quote from: Whiz on August 17, 2008, 12:58

Quote from: bittersweet on August 16, 2008, 23:36
Don't at least two of these count only those visitors who have installed their proprietary toolbar? And one of the "alternatives" you listed only measure U.S. traffic?

But I'm sure you're right that the end is near. With all the new posts being started about Cutcaster, I bet they are going to take the microstock world by storm.

Seriously though, my numbers are not correlating with these traffic numbers at all, not by a long shot. I'm not really going to be all that concerned as long as my paycheck is roughly the same (or more) at the end of every month. When THAT number drops off, then I'll be concerned.

I never said the end was near.

Sorry, guess I didn't put enough smiley faces to make it clear that I was joking.

Jimi King · « **Reply #13 on:** August 17, 2008, 18:48 »

Quote from: bittersweet on August 17, 2008, 15:20

The smallest packages haven't been "a dollar a credit" for a couple of years now.

I never realized that. I seem to recall that they went up to one pound a credit for UK customers a while back and quickly had to reverse that when people complained. I guess I just assumed that their standard price started at a dollar a credit.

I just looked and both FT and DT's cheapest packages are a dollar a credit. BigStock is even more expensive than IS. $2.50 a credit for the smallest package!

Aetherial · « **Reply #14 on:** August 18, 2008, 02:00 »

Quote from: bittersweet on August 16, 2008, 23:36

Seriously though, my numbers are not correlating with these traffic numbers at all, not by a long shot. I'm not really going to be all that concerned as long as my paycheck is roughly the same (or more) at the end of every month. When THAT number drops off, then I'll be concerned.

when THAT number does drop off, it will probably be too late to prevent it.

bittersweet · « **Reply #15 on:** August 18, 2008, 02:37 »

Quote from: Aetherial on August 18, 2008, 02:00

Quote from: bittersweet on August 16, 2008, 23:36
Seriously though, my numbers are not correlating with these traffic numbers at all, not by a long shot. I'm not really going to be all that concerned as long as my paycheck is roughly the same (or more) at the end of every month. When THAT number drops off, then I'll be concerned.

when THAT number does drop off, it will probably be too late to prevent it.

Well, yeah, if it is already done, you can't really prevent it after the fact. I'm not sure what I should be doing to prevent it now. I put little value in these Alexa toolbar users because I'm not convinced they represent a significant number of actual buyers. Yes, I know it was touted as a big "woo yay" when istock ranked so high there, but I wasn't impressed then either.

I'm not one to worry about things "just in case". It's very counterproductive.

thesentinel · « **Reply #16 on:** August 18, 2008, 09:47 »

Ooh look alexa suddenly shot up again

What a load of nonsense.

lisafx · « **Reply #17 on:** August 18, 2008, 10:33 »

I've seen all these charts before. It is somewhat worrying, but I have to agree with Dan and Bittersweet that my numbers aren't reflecting that kind of severe drop.

Nor have my numbers on other stock sites reflected a huge corresponding gain.

bittersweet · « **Reply #18 on:** August 18, 2008, 12:06 »

Quote from: thesentinel on August 18, 2008, 09:47

Ooh look alexa suddenly shot up again
What a load of nonsense.

WOO YAY! I'm having the best sales day ever!!! Can't you tell?? Alexa says it right there!

Actually, it's 1:00 pm and I haven't had a single download.

DanP68 · « **Reply #19 on:** August 22, 2008, 01:00 »

I like the Compete.com chart the best on a 12 month view.

The most noticeable drop is not during the summer, but actually from January to March. Now this starts to make a little more sense. Wasn't this about the time iStock significantly raised their prices? It would be logical that a certain amount of buyers started looking elsewhere in reaction.

The Compete chart from May to July isn't exactly pretty, but it is also not dissimilar from other agencies as we moved:

- into summer
- more clearly into recession
- and energy costs peaked

Shutterstock shows a similar, albeit slightly less pronounced drop, from May to July.

The Alexa numbers look flaky. I trust what I am seeing with Compete.

epixx · « **Reply #20 on:** August 22, 2008, 04:09 »

Quote from: DanP68 on August 22, 2008, 01:00

The Alexa numbers look flaky. I trust what I am seeing with Compete.

I trust what I'm seeing in my bank account

bittersweet · « **Reply #21 on:** August 22, 2008, 08:50 »

Quote from: epixx on August 22, 2008, 04:09

Quote from: DanP68 on August 22, 2008, 01:00
The Alexa numbers look flaky. I trust what I am seeing with Compete.

I trust what I'm seeing in my bank account

Couldn't have said it better myself.

DanP68 · « **Reply #22 on:** August 22, 2008, 13:20 »

Yep, and yesterday you said,

Actually, it's 1:00 pm and I haven't had a single download.

So are your download numbers sufficient enough to guage whether or not an analytic site is accurate?

bittersweet · « **Reply #23 on:** August 22, 2008, 13:55 »

Quote from: DanP68 on August 22, 2008, 13:20

Yep, and yesterday you said,

Actually, it's 1:00 pm and I haven't had a single download.

So are your download numbers sufficient enough to guage whether or not an analytic site is accurate?

Maybe, because by the end of the day I had had an excellent day. Maybe my buyers are in a different time zone.

Which is kind of my point. What difference does the "middle of the day" make? It's what I have at the end of the month that I care about, and as long as that amount is consistent, I have absolutely no interest in whether one day on some graph falls through the floor, or whether you had a bad sales month, or someone else had only 3 downloads one day when they'd usually had "twice that many".

To me, it doesn't seem like a difficult concept to grasp.

ETA: In retrospect I should probably not have participated in this thread at all. Those who will obsess about graphs are not going to be dissuaded by those who do not obsess about graphs. So I do apologize for derailing your theorizing and analysis. Please carry on.

DanP68 · « **Reply #24 on:** August 22, 2008, 18:11 »

No theorizing here, Bittersweet. Just echoing what many contributors (non-exclusive that is) have stated for several months...that they are seeing a drop in downloads which is being masked by a rise in RPD. Our Site Poll used to have iStock either in 1st or in a dead lock with Shutterstock every month. Now Shutterstock is the clear leader in the poll and has been for several months.

So the question is...Is there something going on? Nobody is claiming that iStock's business is falling off the edge of the world. What I see is a clear loss in visitors, which coincided with a large price increase at iStock. As I recall from reading the iStock boards back in January, many contributors were concerned that the price hike was too much, too soon. Maybe they were right? Is it possible iStock lost market share? Is it possible 3 analytic sites actually have it right, and you have it wrong?

lobby · « **Reply #25 on:** August 22, 2008, 20:13 »

in my opoinion microstock sites dosen't have good marketing...

following the industry since 16 months

as a graphic artist and afterwards as a photographer (always like to.. be)

i find the industry as a very cheap market for what was offering,

althought they don't have as match clients as (i believe) they could...

in my opinion there should be about 1 or 2 million clients among all sites

big (5,6,7 or what ever) with that "tiny" price

-My first "contact" was with istock and i find find the price quite cheap-

1 or 2 million clients are very small ....

before they think about prices... and super offers i think they should think

about marketing.

cheers

bittersweet · « **Reply #26 on:** August 22, 2008, 21:06 »

Quote from: DanP68 on August 22, 2008, 18:11

Our Site Poll used to have iStock either in 1st or in a dead lock with Shutterstock every month. Now Shutterstock is the clear leader in the poll and has been for several months.

Are you referring to the poll where users rank sites based on five questions (regardless of whether they actually contribute to them or not), only one of which has anything to do with traffic or earnings, and the remaining four of which are completely subjective?

Quote from: DanP68 on August 22, 2008, 18:11

So the question is...Is there something going on? Nobody is claiming that iStock's business is falling off the edge of the world. What I see is a clear loss in visitors, which coincided with a large price increase at iStock. As I recall from reading the iStock boards back in January, many contributors were concerned that the price hike was too much, too soon. Maybe they were right? Is it possible iStock lost market share? Is it possible 3 analytic sites actually have it right, and you have it wrong?

Yes, anything is possible. I never claimed to be "right". I stated that MY experience does not mirror those graphs in any way (but as you explained, it must be because I'm exclusive). Lisafx is an independent and she probably gets enough downloads for you to deem her portfolio stats relevant, yet she has also stated that these graphs do not mirror her numbers.

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect it. I just happen to disagree with it. That's all.

Have a nice day.

perkmeup · « **Reply #27 on:** October 08, 2008, 11:55 »

I tend to agree with Alexa numbers....they show a huge drop in traffic while all the other stock sites remain steady. My sales at IS have taken a dive over the last 4 months also....right in line with the traffic numbers from Alexa. Plus Istock's search for best match is SOOOO much in favor of Exlcusives....it gets really frustrating sometimes. I understand that they have to offer something (some advantage) to get people to go exclusive......but come on........ If you do a search on anything.....here is my example with the keywords "family, mother, child, baby"

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_search.php?action=file&text=family+baby+mother+child&oldtext=&textDisambiguation=&oldTextDisambiguation=&majorterms=&fileTypeSizePrice=%5B%7B%22type%22%3A%22Image%22%2C%22size%22%3A%22All%22%2C%22priceOption%22%3Anull%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22Video%22%2C%22size%22%3A%22All%22%2C%22priceOption%22%3Anull%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22Flash%22%2C%22size%22%3Anull%2C%22priceOption%22%3A%22All%22%7D%2C%7B%22type%22%3A%22Illustration+%5BVector%5D%22%2C%22size%22%3Anull%2C%22priceOption%22%3A%22All%22%7D%5D&showPeople=&printAvailable=&exclusiveArtists=&extendedLicense=&collectionPayAsYouGo=1&collectionSubscription=1&illustrationLimit=Exactly&flashLimit=Exactly&showDeactivatedFiles=&membername=&userID=&lightboxID=&downloaderID=&approverID=&clearanceBin=&color=&copySpace=&orientation=7&minWidth=0&minHeight=0&showTitle=&showContributor=&showFileNumber=1&showDownload=1&enableLoupe=1&order=Best+Match&perPage=&within=4

I could only find one non exclusive in the first two pages of photos (and it is a very nice photo) and I could probably go many more pages before starting to find very many non exclusive...but I don't want to waste my time .......some of the photos are really nice and probably deserve a high rank.....but some of them....wow... Now go to the last pages in the search....300 or so.... Can you find any Exclusive members here?

I don't think so. There are some very nice photos here.....much nicer than the ones in the first couple pages....or at least on par with them....here is one example that's a nice photo....not a great photo...but nice...surely it doesn't deserve to be on the last page......http://www.istockphoto.com/file_closeup/lifestyle/families/3976128-mother-with-children-on-meadow.php?id=3976128

You really have to have a very very nice photo as a non exclusive in order to get up the ranking .......like I said....it's just so frustrating to be treated like a second hand citizen. Ya...I make money on the site....but at what point to you say...it's not worth it??

fotomy · « **Reply #28 on:** October 09, 2008, 04:00 »

I to feel like a second class citizen on istock as well , they have forgotten where they came from, i am a customer and non exclusive contributor.and feel like i am being treated like dirt.
from a buyers point of view, their collection of images and graphics have slipped way behind in variety and depth of the likes of SS, StockXpert, FT, and DT and they have got greedy with their pricing, i guess we should not think anything better now they are owned by the Getty Borg empire (search for "Borg" on Wikipedia for explanation) .
As a contributor i can see why this is happening, it can take 3 weeks to get photos or vectors to get reviewed and their reviewers are bland, lack imagination and to critical , Is istock that stingy now they are owned by Getty that they cant pay another reviewer. while you wait 168 hours you can only upload 20 images oh please, getting your portfolio short changed in the searches because your not exclusive..and not to mention if you said any of this in the istock forums it will be censored and deleted. do you really expect to keep your reputation on the designers and photographers grape vine with that sort of attitude. no one likes being treated like a second class citizen it stinks. i wont be spending one more dollar with istock preferring to spend it with libraries that care about the people who create the images and give them fair treatment. as for contributing to istock well the revenue is going down for all the reasons above, and its a lot of hassle to upload images and vectors to a company that does not give a S*** for its second class citizens.

Argus · « **Reply #29 on:** October 09, 2008, 05:55 »

Well frankly i'm beginning to care less and less about istock and am seriously starting to consider to just dump them alltogether since:

1. iStock ranks at the very bottom in terms of $ every single month
2. They don't like my images (that's their good right of course), meaning i've got 12 accepted files on iStock in contrast to 10.000 on SS!
3. To much time spent on uploading (just to have the majority rejected)

All in all.. to much frustrations and to little revenue to justify uploading..i'll give it a few more extra months but honestly my patience is running out.

lisafx · « **Reply #30 on:** October 09, 2008, 12:38 »

I just checked your work on SS. You have some amazing stock there. Can't believe istock has only accepted 12 and you have over 8500 on SS!

I have to agree that no matter how hard I work to upload new images my sales have been stagnant on IS, and this month have taken a nosedive. I really hope the best match gets shaken up and non-exclusives have some sort of chance. I don't necessarily insist on equal placement, but at least some opportunity to be seen.

To me the slot system was best. Nobody dominating the searches, and exclusives were protected by having more slots, but at least independents got SOME exposure.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #31 on:** October 09, 2008, 22:38 »

Quote from: Argus on October 09, 2008, 05:55

Well frankly i'm beginning to care less and less about istock and am seriously starting to consider to just dump them alltogether since:

1. iStock ranks at the very bottom in terms of $ every single month
2. They don't like my images (that's their good right of course), meaning i've got 12 accepted files on iStock in contrast to 10.000 on SS!
3. To much time spent on uploading (just to have the majority rejected)

All in all.. to much frustrations and to little revenue to justify uploading..i'll give it a few more extra months but honestly my patience is running out.

Some great work. And you have a huge amount of downloads for only having 12 files on IS. Wonder why they don't accept more? If your other files also had a high DL/MO ratio IS would make more money.

michealo · « **Reply #32 on:** October 10, 2008, 03:15 »

Argus,

It would be interesting to see some of the rejected shots ...

Smithore · « **Reply #33 on:** October 10, 2008, 03:43 »

For rejected images, look at his Shutterstock's portfolio, I guess many of them have been uploaded at Istock, I guess also he has tons of downloads at Shutterstock!
Big drop of downloads at Istock since august for me too, some rejections for " we can't find a focus point...", each time I send a ticket and they finally accept the pictures, they don't like non-exclusive partners...

sharpshot · « **Reply #34 on:** October 10, 2008, 05:05 »

Nice portfolio Argus. For some reason that is only known to them, istock reject most non-vector illustrations. It seems ridiculous to me, as a lot of them sell much more than photos. They lose money, we lose money and their customers have to look on the other sites to see some of our best selling images. Where is the sense in that? It is one of several reasons why I can't see istock being the No.1 site in the future.

The best match change last month looks quite drastic. My sales slumped but now most of my first pages are new images and they are starting to sell. Hopefully there is a lag while buyers adjust and sales will bounce back.

photoagogo · « **Reply #35 on:** October 10, 2008, 06:56 »

Quote from: Smithore on October 10, 2008, 03:43

Big drop of downloads at Istock since august for me too, some rejections for " we can't find a focus point...", each time I send a ticket and they finally accept the pictures, they don't like non-exclusive partners...

It's not just non-exclusives. I find rejections always increase when there are new inspectors - I think they feel they have to be critical to 'prove' themselves then after a few months when they've settled in approvals and rejections become more reasonable. Of course, you'll always get one or two ballbreakers, but spreading your uploads can mitigate against getting one.

Argus · « **Reply #36 on:** October 10, 2008, 07:30 »

Yup, if you want to know which of my images were rejected at iStock just take a look at the first few pages of my SS port. That should give a general idea. But i also upload some less popular ones if i think they make a better shot at being accepted at iStock (usually the duller ones with plain colours and layout)

And I definately agree with iStock losing customers because of this policy. I mean.. there really is a market for this type of images but as long as iStock prefers to reject them.. well people have no choice but to look at other sites. Bad policy decision if you ask me

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: It's not just Alexa. (Read 12245 times)

bittersweet

DanP68

bittersweet

bittersweet

bittersweet

bittersweet

lisafx

bittersweet

DanP68

bittersweet

DanP68

bittersweet

DanP68

bittersweet

lisafx

michealo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors