Author Topic: What is really, going on? (Read 8053 times)

a1bercik · « **Reply #25 on:** November 25, 2011, 17:28 »

November is my best month this year on IS :-). The most popular P+ files do the job, the volume is also higher than any other month this year (and still 5 days to go). I'm not happy with 15%, wouldn't recommend IS to friends, wouldn't even mention this site (I try to advertise the smallest ;-) But this month IS rocks in my stats...

lagereek · « **Reply #26 on:** November 26, 2011, 06:39 »

Quote from: a1bercik on November 25, 2011, 17:28

November is my best month this year on IS :-). The most popular P+ files do the job, the volume is also higher than any other month this year (and still 5 days to go). I'm not happy with 15%, wouldn't recommend IS to friends, wouldn't even mention this site (I try to advertise the smallest ;-) But this month IS rocks in my stats...

Good! but Im afraid its no indication of anything, unless you are diamond/gold contributor. Almost all of the lower cannister contributors are reporting great sales and almost all of the higher contributors are reporting terrible sales. Much more difficult to top 1000, dls per month then say, 200.

ShadySue · « **Reply #27 on:** November 26, 2011, 06:54 »

Quote from: a1bercik on November 25, 2011, 17:28

November is my best month this year on IS :-).

Yeah, well, November '08 was my best month on IS. I'm about 50% down for $$ on that year and c30% down on last Nov. For this year, Nov for me is an 'average' month. As well as fewer dls, I'm being hit by fewer ELs (i.e. not one since 15th August). I don't know where my ELs have gone.

Difydave · « **Reply #28 on:** November 26, 2011, 07:11 »

Hi Chris
I don't know what's going on. It looks like they've completely lost the original plot and are going off who knows where. The whole thing of these large amounts of outside content coming in presumably diluting sales, and the way normal contributors complaints and concerns seem to be dealt with at present don't give me a great deal of hope for the future.
What I do know is that my own sales are about 60% of what they were this time last year / early this year.

aluxum · « **Reply #29 on:** November 26, 2011, 09:04 »

I cannot complain. My sales at Istock keep growing. I am fairly new at the micro game. It worries me like other Istock contributors the download spiral that many are reporting. On the other hand coming from the macro side, I value that Istock introduced Vetta and Agency collections although I am not a Vetta/Agency shooter. I think Shutterstock is not a viable proposition for photographers who rely on a type of photography that doesn't fit into the "popular subject or style" and would never recoup the production costs associated on that type of images if a higher price would be charged for those images. This is a strong reason why many powerful very creative exclusives will stay in Istock. The 30c subscription option will never work for them.....

lagereek · « **Reply #30 on:** November 26, 2011, 09:36 »

Quote from: aluxum on November 26, 2011, 09:04

I cannot complain. My sales at Istock keep growing. I am fairly new at the micro game. It worries me like other Istock contributors the download spiral that many are reporting. On the other hand coming from the macro side, I value that Istock introduced Vetta and Agency collections although I am not a Vetta/Agency shooter. I think Shutterstock is not a viable proposition for photographers who rely on a type of photography that doesn't fit into the "popular subject or style" and would never recoup the production costs associated on that type of images if a higher price would be charged for those images. This is a strong reason why many powerful very creative exclusives will stay in Istock. The 30c subscription option will never work for them.....

I can hear you are new to this, Im coming heavily from Macro myself but have never heard of your spiel. 0.30c a throw, hey? you sure got that wrong, SODs at nearly 3 bucks a throw are raining down at SS, so are ELs and single sales, Im an IS Diamond, yet SS brings me in 10 times more, hows that for starters? and if you are new to Micro, your track-record at IS so far can not be anything at all to go bye.
Sorry to rain on your parade.

fujiko · « **Reply #31 on:** November 26, 2011, 10:21 »

Maybe they are simply distributing wealth, diluting the wight of people who entered earlier when there was not much competition and had the luck to sell images so many times that those were on top of the search just by being early lucky images. That way nobody will have much power. Newbies will keep coming and old timers will struggle to keep their earnings.

It's the opposite of fotolia, the agency that doesn't give a chance to newbies and just makes everything to keep elders happy.

Who will win? The others. FT and IS will die. Too much bias in either direction is harmful in the long run.

aluxum · « **Reply #32 on:** November 26, 2011, 11:26 »

Im an IS Diamond, yet SS brings me in 10 times more, hows that for starters?

Well obviously Istock is not playing well for you at the moment, or SS is just doing extraordinary well. When I went exclusive my earnings increased 8xtimes the next month. Remember that the income for exclusives is much higher because of royalty cut, prices and what is more important best match. it doesn't surprise me that with such low commissions and bad best match placement for non exclusives so many are reporting such dismal sales.

In relation to SS, there is a place for everyone , RM, macro RF-Vetta-Agency, micro pay-per-download and subscriptions. Nowadays Istock/Getty tries to be present at all those segments (for clients and image producers). SS is not there yet.

Figures like the Microstock 2010 survey http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-income-vs-portfolio-size/ point that exclusive Istock contributors are generally speaking doing better than non exclusives. This might of course change in a heartbeat. No empire lasts forever. And the monthly earning posts are without a doubt a sign to be concerned.

Beach Bum · « **Reply #33 on:** November 26, 2011, 11:27 »

Quote from: Karimala on November 25, 2011, 09:57

I'm one of those who will be leaving, as soon as my income builds up enough in other places to make up for the loss. This month I've earned more from three EL sales at IS than regular sales...a first. As reported in a previous post, I used to earn about $500 per month there, but this month I'll be lucky to reach $60 (without the ELs). That's about what I earn from TS sales. It's ridiculous! While all the other sites remain steady or continue to increase, IS is in the gutter.

It does seem a lot of buyers have migrated to other sites for their PP needs. SS's PP sales are better than ever, as are DT's and 123RF's, which I find amazing considering I really haven't uploaded much the past two years as I concentrate on other projects.

Yeah. Same here. If the recent downturn in sales continues, It will certainly make it much easier to leave. A few years ago, leaving Istock was unthinkable. But now, it's almost a foregone conclusion. Wow, how things have changed!

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #34 on:** November 26, 2011, 13:42 »

Quote from: aluxum on November 26, 2011, 09:04

...This is a strong reason why many powerful very creative exclusives will stay in Istock. The 30c subscription option will never work for them.....

This spring, Getty forced participation in subscription programs (Thinkstock and photos.com) on its contract holders. For the moment, iStock exclusives have the ability to opt out, but I can't imagine that's going to stay that way - it wasn't as if the Getty contributors liked the moved or asked for it. Not only are subscriptions likely to be in all exclusives' future (not just those who chose the PP voluntarily), but you get no RC for any sales at any other site, so to the extent sales migrate from iStock to Getty (upstream) or TS/photos.com (downstream), your ability to keep your higher royalty percentage at iStock is weakened.

The pre-September 2010 iStock was an alternative; since then, I don't think so.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #35 on:** November 26, 2011, 14:01 »

Quote from: aluxum on November 26, 2011, 09:04

I think Shutterstock is not a viable proposition for photographers who rely on a type of photography that doesn't fit into the "popular subject or style" and would never recoup the production costs associated on that type of images if a higher price would be charged for those images.

I'm not sure if you are better off shooting "popular subject and style" against Yuri, Andre and 500 others or shooting unpopular subjects against one or two people nobody ever heard of. I do OK without "popular" stuff. Big fish in small pond or tiny fish in huge pond ... who gets more?

aluxum · « **Reply #36 on:** November 26, 2011, 15:05 »

Quote from: jsnover on November 26, 2011, 13:42

This spring, Getty forced participation in subscription programs (Thinkstock and photos.com) on its contract holders. For the moment, iStock exclusives have the ability to opt out, but I can't imagine that's going to stay that way - it wasn't as if the Getty contributors liked the moved or asked for it. Not only are subscriptions likely to be in all exclusives' future (not just those who chose the PP voluntarily), but you get no RC for any sales at any other site, so to the extent sales migrate from iStock to Getty (upstream) or TS/photos.com (downstream), your ability to keep your higher royalty percentage at iStock is weakened.

The pre-September 2010 iStock was an alternative; since then, I don't think so.

True. I also concur that sooner or later exclusives might have to swallow that bitter pill. I had to sign a few months back the new Gettyimages contract were new RF images can go also to Thinkstock or photos.com. So at some point they might need those "exclusive" images to compete successfully with the subscription market leader. I am not so sure that Vetta or Agency images will follow that path but who knows whats in Getty's executive heads. With the new RC system they aim to that 20% standard for RF they are used to, so yes the migration to those subscription site will erode the RC targets.

This is one reason that it is extremely important that Istock competition stays healthy and a viable option to any photographer so that they know that if they push the envelope too far they will get abandoned, a process that has started already, you are a strong proof of that. And loosing exclusive contributors like you is no doubt hurting them and this is a reason that they don't squeeze us even more. A balance between as many agencies as possible is the best for our interests. If any of them kills the others we will be all in deep trouble, be it Istock or Shutterstock (read in the past they were interested to sell part of it in the stock market-any truth in that?).

In any case you have been on both fences now and know better than most us here what to expect from being exclusive or not. As I said before I am quite happy with my progression but as many exclusives at the same time very nervous to have all eggs in one basket. I hope and wish that I can keep in this environment for many years to follow but if the situation gets unsustainable the alternative to jump ship as you did is always there.

aluxum · « **Reply #37 on:** November 26, 2011, 15:21 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 26, 2011, 14:01

I'm not sure if you are better off shooting "popular subject and style" against Yuri, Andre and 500 others or shooting unpopular subjects against one or two people nobody ever heard of. I do OK without "popular" stuff. Big fish in small pond or tiny fish in huge pond ... who gets more?

"Popular subject and style" is much better suited for micro even which a much tougher competition. I really think micro is not the best place for niche images. If you shoot really niche images, that anybody can access or create then your potential buyers will be willing to pay much more because they have no other choice to do so. This is the reason why macro still exists. Some images are just not viable as micro and at the same time so unique that they still sell for the thousands. With Vetta and Agency they created a realm in micro were images with more "artistic o production value" were financially possible to create. That's OK and good for the photographer and good for the client that gets images that would not be there in the first place if it would make no economic sense to produce them. The problem comes when many of those "Vettas and Agencies" have similar competition with much cheaper prices so shouldn't wear the Vetta/Agency tag in the first place. This gives a bad impression to buyers that don't understand with good reason why they are priced tenth fold.

lagereek · « **Reply #38 on:** November 26, 2011, 16:18 »

Quote from: fujiko on November 26, 2011, 10:21

Maybe they are simply distributing wealth, diluting the wight of people who entered earlier when there was not much competition and had the luck to sell images so many times that those were on top of the search just by being early lucky images. That way nobody will have much power. Newbies will keep coming and old timers will struggle to keep their earnings.

It's the opposite of fotolia, the agency that doesn't give a chance to newbies and just makes everything to keep elders happy.

Who will win? The others. FT and IS will die. Too much bias in either direction is harmful in the long run.

"who will win" quote ? well my prediction and if history is anything to go by for the last 20 years or so is: once external and internal politics problems starts like this as with IS, tons of members upset, buyers leaving, etc, there is really no way back, its had it. I am sure that once IS, is mirrored into TS, give it a year or so, Vettas, etc, will slowly be moved and sadly, IS will be history. The agency as we know it will cease to exist.

FT: will definetley exist, its a good agency and they sell well and newbies have got to earn their place, there are no free rides or gravy-trains in this business, them days are over.

best.

jtyler · « **Reply #39 on:** December 12, 2011, 18:41 »

Quote from: ranplett on November 24, 2011, 18:18

I've got black diamond status, but it doesn't really mean much these. Gold members can easily outsell black diamonds. The canister program is now out of date and for the most part irrelevant.

Actual sales figures are a different story, and by the look of it, it looks like this month could be 20 - 25% less in sales then expected. That is a lot. I try not to complain. Last year my sales dropped in October by 20% and that was the first time ever. Prior to that, I always saw constant growth. So I was a little bummed out, but 2011 looked to be recovering. Not anymore.

My guess has always been that declining sales was a result of overly aggressive pricing for Agency files (250 credits) and Vetta files (150 credits). This suggests that iStock has lost sight of it's values as being a simple, good value image market.

Also, more recently, and this was based on the survey results (obviously), the newer files were given more room up front in the searches. This hurt a lot of seasoned artists and benefitted the newer ones. But now, even the newer artists are suffering from less sales.

I'm really curious to see how the management will respond...

Well, they have started putting back our missing royalties, but who has any idea that they are accurate. I would not expect any reply unless you know who comes back to tell IS'ers what a great year it was, and Oh BTW we are cutting your royalty as this unsustainable. It used to be "Pride goeth before a fall", but in this day and age in the American and Global economy "Greed goeth before a fall" seems more accurate.

wut · « **Reply #40 on:** December 12, 2011, 18:58 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 26, 2011, 14:01

Quote from: aluxum on November 26, 2011, 09:04
I think Shutterstock is not a viable proposition for photographers who rely on a type of photography that doesn't fit into the "popular subject or style" and would never recoup the production costs associated on that type of images if a higher price would be charged for those images.

I'm not sure if you are better off shooting "popular subject and style" against Yuri, Andre and 500 others or shooting unpopular subjects against one or two people nobody ever heard of. I do OK without "popular" stuff. Big fish in small pond or tiny fish in huge pond ... who gets more?

I'm wondering, what do you shoot? You don't have to be super specific, I'm just curious. You can PM me if you don't want to discuss it publicly. Or do nothing, of course

luissantos84 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 12, 2011, 19:05 »

Quote from: wut on December 12, 2011, 18:58

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on November 26, 2011, 14:01
Quote from: aluxum on November 26, 2011, 09:04
I think Shutterstock is not a viable proposition for photographers who rely on a type of photography that doesn't fit into the "popular subject or style" and would never recoup the production costs associated on that type of images if a higher price would be charged for those images.

I'm not sure if you are better off shooting "popular subject and style" against Yuri, Andre and 500 others or shooting unpopular subjects against one or two people nobody ever heard of. I do OK without "popular" stuff. Big fish in small pond or tiny fish in huge pond ... who gets more?

I'm wondering, what do you shoot? You don't have to be super specific, I'm just curious. You can PM me if you don't want to discuss it publicly. Or do nothing, of course

you need to read more

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What is really, going on? (Read 8053 times)

a1bercik

lagereek

ShadySue

Difydave

aluxum

lagereek

fujiko

aluxum

Beach Bum

Jo Ann Snover

BaldricksTrousers

aluxum

aluxum

lagereek

jtyler

wut

luissantos84

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors