Author Topic: It's not just Alexa. (Read 12267 times)

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 12267 times)

lobby

bittersweet

perkmeup

fotomy

Argus

lisafx

PaulieWalnuts

michealo

Smithore

sharpshot

photoagogo

Argus

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors