MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales have tanked big time  (Read 122189 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

« Reply #50 on: September 13, 2011, 11:56 »
0
Anyone (as well as aenof) getting good sales in September? Mine seem to have literally fallen off a cliff since the end of August. That's comparing to myself, not to BDs!


« Reply #51 on: September 13, 2011, 12:12 »
0
Last week was one of the best weeks for me on Istock in probably 6 months.  No ELs, just lots of downloads. 

« Reply #52 on: September 13, 2011, 13:39 »
0
Today seems quite dead but so far doing about 20% better then last month (which was horrible) but I still consider it slow (low RPI).
MS is a tough bussiness!

« Reply #53 on: September 13, 2011, 13:42 »
0
Today seems quite dead but so far doing about 20% better then last month (which was horrible) but I still consider it slow (low RPI).
MS is a tough bussiness!

LOL now it is tough? I remember you saying that in a few weeks you would be over Sean  ;D

« Reply #54 on: September 13, 2011, 16:10 »
0
Today seems quite dead but so far doing about 20% better then last month (which was horrible) but I still consider it slow (low RPI).
MS is a tough bussiness!

LOL now it is tough? I remember you saying that in a few weeks you would be over Sean  ;D

If I said that I was surely being sarcastic (or drunk), maybe in a few decades :)

« Reply #55 on: September 13, 2011, 16:29 »
0
It's weird. One day there are like two or three days' sales rolled into one, then nothing at all on Sunday (the first time this year), and then Monday is like a Sunday. Today seems to be heading for an average result. Basically, everything is all over the place.

Phadrea

    This user is banned.
« Reply #56 on: September 14, 2011, 11:32 »
0
It's absolutely terrible.  Still dire sales. Sept=on track for being crapper than Aug.

ShadySue

« Reply #57 on: September 14, 2011, 12:59 »
0
It's absolutely terrible.  Still dire sales. Sept=on track for being crapper than Aug.
On day average, I'm almost 1/3 down on August, and it's not getting better. Even the few sales I get are smaller sizes on average.

« Reply #58 on: September 14, 2011, 14:34 »
0
It's absolutely terrible.  Still dire sales. Sept=on track for being crapper than Aug.
On day average, I'm almost 1/3 down on August, and it's not getting better. Even the few sales I get are smaller sizes on average.
Yeah, last week was bad for me. Worst week for a long time. This week started off OK-ish on Monday, but it's been downhill since.   

« Reply #59 on: September 14, 2011, 14:38 »
0
I don't get it, independents are reporting declining, dismal sales at IS - so why are so many willing to accept their unreasonable ASA and give up control of their images in the process??! You're giving up so much to invest in a sinking ship!

lisafx

« Reply #60 on: September 14, 2011, 15:15 »
0
I don't get it, independents are reporting declining, dismal sales at IS - so why are so many willing to accept their unreasonable ASA and give up control of their images in the process??! You're giving up so much to invest in a sinking ship!

There's decline and there's cessation.  I had a decline of sales from Istock over the past year.  Did not have cessation of sales, or anything close to it.  Now sales are picking up a bit. 

Also, P+ has given the ability to raise prices of good selling images, which offsets some of the numerical declines. 

Istock's declining numbers are worrying, but they were the top selling site for quite a few years.  They are still number two (or even #1 in my case) for a lot of people.  So despite their decline, and other shenanigans, they still bring in a substantial amount of income. 

Do they suck?  Yes.  Do they suck enough to make people sacrifice large percentage of their household income?   Everyone's answer to that's going to be different.  (check the poll). 

ShadySue

« Reply #61 on: September 14, 2011, 15:25 »
0
I don't get it, independents are reporting declining, dismal sales at IS - so why are so many willing to accept their unreasonable ASA and give up control of their images in the process??! You're giving up so much to invest in a sinking ship!
I don't think a knee-jerk reaction to two weeks' worth of poor sales would necessarily be in my best interest.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 15:52 by ShadySue »

ShadySue

« Reply #62 on: September 14, 2011, 15:29 »
0
But keeping a watching brief is always smart too.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 15:42 by ShadySue »

lisafx

« Reply #63 on: September 14, 2011, 15:29 »
0
I don't think a knee-jerk reaction two weeks worth of poor sales would necessary be in my best interest.

Perfect!  Said in one sentence what it took me 4 paragraphs to try and get across.  :D

« Reply #64 on: September 14, 2011, 19:05 »
0
IS came up with Thinkstock for the purpose of destroying the competition - and if you think they're exploiting us now, imagine how bad things can get if they have very little in the way of competition to hold them in check. Raising commissions wasn't enough to lure people into TS, so they have now resorted to FORCING people to allow them to mirror their images on TS. They are counting on our passivity to work in their favor. Do you really want to prove them right? The exclusive content gets mirrored upstream, while independent content gets kicked down over to the bargain basement - thus devaluing your work, while raising the value of their own exclusive content by comparison. They've been screwing photographers for years, and they're very good at what they do. Underestimate them at your peril...

« Reply #65 on: September 14, 2011, 19:43 »
0
I think Getty wants to make the most money possible. They don't have any particular wish to destroy competitors, but that's collateral damage given how they operate.

We're a cost and driving down costs is what they're trying to do. Unfortunately for us, there is no control over supply and the barriers to entry (for new photographers) are relatively low, especially if you're not being too picky and there aren't any "name brands" that customers demand.

I don't underestimate Getty, but I also don't want to overestimate the value of my photography to microstock customers. There are plenty of other people out there who will supply Getty if I don't. I will keep my new stuff off iStock for a bit so it shows up elsewhere first, but other than removing my vectors from iStock (which I already did) I don't think removing all of the independent iStock content from Getty's subscription sites would be more than a temporary setback for them.

Unpleasant realities, I'll grant you, but that's what I see.

« Reply #66 on: September 14, 2011, 21:13 »
0
But the independent boycott of Thinkstock was working, that's why they raised commissions early on! It's also why they resorted to forcing participation in TS. I think we underestimate our collective power, and we give up and give in way-y-y too easily.

« Reply #67 on: September 14, 2011, 22:40 »
0
But the independent boycott of Thinkstock was working, that's why they raised commissions early on! It's also why they resorted to forcing participation in TS. I think we underestimate our collective power, and we give up and give in way-y-y too easily.

I don't think I'm giving up, and I've been involved in a lot of the actions to try and bring agencies around to a more contributor friendly point of view for years. If you look at the IS forums, I was one of the vocal critics against the PP from the very beginning. I would never voluntarily have opted in without much better terms. When the commissions were raised and they still didn't get enough content, Getty made it mandatory (and they'd already shoved that down the throats of Getty Images contract holders this spring).

If Getty had offered another raise or an inducement, it would have indicated we still had wiggle room. They didn't - it was a switch to hardball tactics. It's most unfortunate that Getty owns so many of the stock outlets, but that gives them a very big stick. I fully expect them to mandate exclusive IS content into the PP in the future when they discover that it does them no good at all to have just the independent content on the partner sites that's already (plus more) on all the other microstock agencies.

We're outgunned here, at least with respect to Getty. If it were one of the other agencies, they'd have a harder time rebuilding their libraries from zero, but the Getty name will have people falling all over themselves to be abused by them.

lisafx

« Reply #68 on: September 14, 2011, 22:48 »
0
Allsa, you do realize that to one degree or another three of the four top agencies have cut commissions, right?  And I assume you are also aware that three of the top 4 have "forced" people to participate in their subscription programs (the 4th is mostly all subs to begin with).  

Why quit Istock, but remain at FT and DT?  And if you do quit all three, just to be consistent, why be in microstock at all.  If you give up the best selling sites then you aren't very serious about stock in the first place.  

Most importantly, do you really think you are going to browbeat professional stock photographers into joining some rebellion with you?  You asked a question, it has been answered at great length by several people.  But by all means, keep belaboring your point.  Maybe we will all see the light and join you after all. 

I will certainly consider quitting Istock if you want to mail me a $100,000 check to cover the income you are asking me to give up over the next few years.  What's that, not sending that check?  Then I guess you are just talking out your a$$.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 22:53 by lisafx »

« Reply #69 on: September 15, 2011, 01:50 »
0
But the independent boycott of Thinkstock was working, that's why they raised commissions early on! It's also why they resorted to forcing participation in TS. I think we underestimate our collective power, and we give up and give in way-y-y too easily.

That's what you want to think. Commissions were raised after more than a year - that's not early on. And if it had anything to do with trying to drag more people into the programme please explain why they announced the increase in March and backdated it to January. What reason is there for backdating something if its purpose is to lure people to join you in future?

I'm pretty sure the commission rise was linked to an increase in the price of subscriptions and was designed to maintain a certain percentage payout. They waited until they saw the effect on their income and then announced the new rate - which is what SS used to do. The difference is that TS backdated the increase, presumably to the point where they had increased the subscription price.

TS is a much bigger and more successful agency than you think it is. In my earnings table it comes fourth, consistently behind DT but way ahead of Fotolia, Bigstock or 123.

lagereek

« Reply #70 on: September 15, 2011, 01:55 »
0
JoAnne!  in order for Getty to earn as much as possible, they HAVE to destroy the competition, or else, whats the point? its business. The old adage, theres room for everybody, doesnt apply to the Micro industry,  here according to Getty, there can be only one. In any modern psychiatry that would be stamped as "inferiority-complex"  not the Napoleon syndrome.

Other major agencies are not helping at all, they follow like good little boys, cutting commissions, changing BMs, this and that, which ofcourse is exactly what Getty wants to happen, thats exactly what Getty wants them to do,  just look how many members screaming they are going to delete their ports at FT, etc?

Its clever, making other, smaller agencies follow, immitating their actions, deviating much heat from themselves. So far, I would say there policy have succeeded beautyfully.

« Reply #71 on: September 15, 2011, 02:12 »
0
Actually, you've got that backwards. Other agencies are introducing things like cut commissions (Fotolia is the market leader), subscription sales (DT and Fot) and iStock is running along behind them.

Does iStock need a competitor in order to avoid problems with monopolies legislation? It isn't trying to wipe out SS, if it was it would be undercutting the subscription price, which it could easily do, instead of pricing at similar or higher rates.

lagereek

« Reply #72 on: September 15, 2011, 02:18 »
0
Actually, you've got that backwards. Other agencies are introducing things like cut commissions (Fotolia is the market leader), subscription sales (DT and Fot) and iStock is running along behind them.

Does iStock need a competitor in order to avoid problems with monopolies legislation? It isn't trying to wipe out SS, if it was it would be undercutting the subscription price, which it could easily do, instead of pricing at similar or higher rates.

Sure!  nowdays, yes,  but IS, started the ball rolling a few years back, on purpose ofcourse!  then they take a back-seat, watching the others fall apart. Thankfully, some refuse to fall.

« Reply #73 on: September 15, 2011, 02:27 »
0
Does iStock need a competitor in order to avoid problems with monopolies legislation? It isn't trying to wipe out SS, if it was it would be undercutting the subscription price, which it could easily do, instead of pricing at similar or higher rates.

Ever heard of Thinkstock.com...? (They ARE trying to wipe out SS, and soon when they have forced all images to Thinkstock they will begin the fierce battle. I hope SS wins.)

« Reply #74 on: September 15, 2011, 02:42 »
0
Does iStock need a competitor in order to avoid problems with monopolies legislation? It isn't trying to wipe out SS, if it was it would be undercutting the subscription price, which it could easily do, instead of pricing at similar or higher rates.

Ever heard of Thinkstock.com...? (They ARE trying to wipe out SS, and soon when they have forced all images to Thinkstock they will begin the fierce battle. I hope SS wins.)

It gets me that everybody knows exactly what the strategic thinking is at iStock high command. They don't just suspect something, they know it as an absolute certainty. Sure, you COULD be right. But then you could also be wrong. What evidence is there that TS is intended to wipe out SS? All we know is that they created a subscription site and are pouring a lot of old, low-value stuff into it, along with much of the iStock collection. As the running costs are minimal they could easily sell subscriptions at half SS prices and still make a profit, but they never did that. They fixed the price as equal to or higher than SS prices. It's not the behaviour of a site that has the objective of wiping out its main rival.

Until someone produces something more solid than rhetoric, suspicion and ill-feeling to support this "they're out to destroy SS, the mighty battle approaches" theory, I will continue to base my opinions on the very limited facts that are available - which do not really support that theory. It is possible that this is the long-term objective (and one that is failing dismally at the moment) but there are alternatives.

How does US law regard monopolies? Are they subject to any regulation? If so, becoming a monopoly might not be the most profitable strategy.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
4421 Views
Last post October 25, 2011, 01:02
by MicrostockExp
17 Replies
3502 Views
Last post September 18, 2012, 15:44
by tavi
2 Replies
1848 Views
Last post March 16, 2016, 06:25
by mirkic
17 Replies
3469 Views
Last post May 04, 2017, 16:38
by heywoody
28 Replies
5620 Views
Last post July 25, 2017, 01:34
by zorandim

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results