Author Topic: Sales in iStock (Read 14163 times)

wut · « **Reply #25 on:** February 14, 2012, 15:49 »

Quote from: heywoody on February 14, 2012, 15:47

I could moan about acceptance but can't complain about sales on the few that have got in. Last year 20 images in IS netted 75% of what I earned on FT and 50% of DT with over 300 images. Per image earnings were 4 times SS despite the fact that my most downloaded images are not on IS.

Then exclusivity is the obvious answer for you

heywoody · « **Reply #26 on:** February 14, 2012, 18:04 »

Jaysus NO!

Per image is fine but it's about 10% overall and if IS changed their approach to this kind of stuff all the folks who do it much better would be there.

Skylinehunter · « **Reply #27 on:** February 15, 2012, 23:06 »

Quote from: Danybot on February 13, 2012, 23:56

Quote from: markrhiggins on February 13, 2012, 22:56
looka t the good side ,it can only get better (hope?)

I'm not sure about that. Just because it's already very bad, doesn't mean it won't get worse. I have a portfolio of over 1500 on Istock, and 500 on 123RF. My revenue so far in February on 123RF is $34, beating my revenue from Istock, which is a miserable $33. That's about one-third of what I made this time last year on Istock. Buyers have probably realized that Istock is very overpriced. On 123RF, I get a 50% commission, so buyers have paid $68. On Istock, I get a 16% commission, so buyers have paid $206 for about the same number of photos. I've completely stopped uploading to Istock, and eventually will have my entire portfolio there duplicated on other sites. Gradually, their selection will become relatively poorer, and buyers will have even less reason to go there. Their attempt at making a huge profit margin is just not economically viable. If they attempt to cut their prices to make themselves competitive, and still pay me only a 16% commission, I will just delete all my photos from there. Why should I sell my photos for a dime on Istock, if I can always get 35 cents at Dreamstime or 123RF?

The only way Istock can remain viable is to cut their margin, and I'm not sure they have the foresight to do that.

I hate to be an a**hole but if that is typical for 1500 images (non-exclusive), I'd rather stay exclusive on Istockphoto.

dcdp · « **Reply #28 on:** February 15, 2012, 23:19 »

Quote from: Skylinehunter on February 15, 2012, 23:06

Quote from: Danybot on February 13, 2012, 23:56
Quote from: markrhiggins on February 13, 2012, 22:56
looka t the good side ,it can only get better (hope?)

I'm not sure about that. Just because it's already very bad, doesn't mean it won't get worse. I have a portfolio of over 1500 on Istock, and 500 on 123RF. My revenue so far in February on 123RF is $34, beating my revenue from Istock, which is a miserable $33. That's about one-third of what I made this time last year on Istock. Buyers have probably realized that Istock is very overpriced. On 123RF, I get a 50% commission, so buyers have paid $68. On Istock, I get a 16% commission, so buyers have paid $206 for about the same number of photos. I've completely stopped uploading to Istock, and eventually will have my entire portfolio there duplicated on other sites. Gradually, their selection will become relatively poorer, and buyers will have even less reason to go there. Their attempt at making a huge profit margin is just not economically viable. If they attempt to cut their prices to make themselves competitive, and still pay me only a 16% commission, I will just delete all my photos from there. Why should I sell my photos for a dime on Istock, if I can always get 35 cents at Dreamstime or 123RF?

The only way Istock can remain viable is to cut their margin, and I'm not sure they have the foresight to do that.

I hate to be an a**hole but if that is typical for 1500 images (non-exclusive), I'd rather stay exclusive on Istockphoto.

True, but if you then upload those 1500 images to half a dozen other sites it adds up. There is very much a case of diminishing returns on some of the smaller sites, but there are a number that would return more than 123RF on that volume.

There are definitely benefits to being exclusive to iStock, but if iStock is in decline then having benefits there is like saying "I have a first class cabin on the Titanic."

thaimacky · « **Reply #29 on:** February 16, 2012, 01:35 »

i upload on 10 sites. all of them doing quite ok compared to last year.
but istock went down from the 2nd to my 5th best within 2 month. february on istock is horrible so far

Noedelhap · « **Reply #30 on:** February 16, 2012, 11:19 »

Quote from: Danybot on February 13, 2012, 23:56

Buyers have probably realized that Istock is very overpriced.

It's not overpriced, the others are underpriced. $18 for a quality vector image is not a whole lot of money, especially compared to a custom vector design.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #31 on:** February 16, 2012, 11:38 »

I agree. I wish I had the kind of business that required me to buy some of the amazing work other people on IS do. It would be well worth the cost.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #32 on:** February 16, 2012, 12:14 »

I hate to say it, but I am considering starting to upload again to iStock. The recent fury over changes and declining sales had convinced me to stop a while back.

But since relatively few contributors of note have pulled their ports to cause iStock any real pain, and since I've seen a significant boost in earnings over the past few weeks, I think I may start sending them stuff again... that is, if I can bear the painful uploading process.

Anyone want to talk me out of it?

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #33 on:** February 16, 2012, 12:33 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on February 16, 2012, 12:14

...Anyone want to talk me out of it?

I've no idea who you are, so how could I talk to you at all?

djdpdx · « **Reply #34 on:** February 18, 2012, 22:48 »

Hello, I am new to the forums. I've had diamond status for a couple of years and iStockphoto and my sales absolutely cratered last year. Back to 2006 levels. A few dozen of my flameworthy images got destroyed by best match changes. Images downloading 8-12x times per month just stopped being purchased altogether. Coupled with consecutive royalty cuts at the end of 2010 and 2011, and it's not even worth uploading to iStock. New stuff gets buried.

I canceled my exclusivity after more than 5 years. I never thought I'd do it, but it'd be dumb not to, at this point. Diversifying seems like the smart way to go.

stockmarketer, this is a roundabout/self-important way of saying that I wouldn't recommend resuming your iStock uploads, nor would I recommend deactivating all of your stuff there, either. Just keep a toe in the water. You can't drown that way.

lagereek · « **Reply #35 on:** February 19, 2012, 01:40 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on February 16, 2012, 12:14

I hate to say it, but I am considering starting to upload again to iStock. The recent fury over changes and declining sales had convinced me to stop a while back.

But since relatively few contributors of note have pulled their ports to cause iStock any real pain, and since I've seen a significant boost in earnings over the past few weeks, I think I may start sending them stuff again... that is, if I can bear the painful uploading process.

Anyone want to talk me out of it?

Whats the point? unless youre an exclusive, all your stuff will eventually end up at TS anyway and by the look of things, TS, could even be a better bet then IS?

Danybot · « **Reply #36 on:** February 19, 2012, 01:44 »

Quote from: djdpdx on February 18, 2012, 22:48

stockmarketer, this is a roundabout/self-important way of saying that I wouldn't recommend resuming your iStock uploads, nor would I recommend deactivating all of your stuff there, either. Just keep a toe in the water. You can't drown that way.

Regarding deactivation: you have to remember that many buyers look at more than one agency, so you are always competing against yourself when you upload to more than one place. I have a few images that are fairly unique to me, and I have deactivated those from istock. If the price I get for that photo is less on istock than everywhere else, I may end up making more by removing it from the site where I am paid the least for it. On principle, I would rather let an agency that takes a more reasonable percentage commission get my business.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #37 on:** February 19, 2012, 09:22 »

Maybe my experience does not weigh much, since I stopped regular uploads almost two years ago, but iStock is the one agency where earnings really dropped massively. There is a small decline in all other agencies as well, except with shutterstock. If I would start again to submit regulary, I would not see a point in uploading to iStock, I fear it would only slow down the demise.
I am totally surprised by SS, I never thought they would hold up so well. But altogether, I do not see a future in microstock, if it continues the way it always has. I am happy I ventured off into other areas of photography to have a income with a better outlook on the future. But istock above all other agencies has really highlighted this and this really discouraged me of doing more microstock.

dbajurin · « **Reply #38 on:** February 19, 2012, 14:26 »

After lot of checking, testing and calculations I think I know where is the catch. After exclusivity other most important thing in weighting on Istock is regular upload. If you regularly upload on Istock and number of images can put you even in front of some exclusives.

We all now from last year that weighting on DT is all about description (longer is better)-title(google rank) and number of keywords (shorter is better). So I hope that we will find formula for IS too.

I drop exclusivity in video few days a go on istock so I will test this Istock theory on video also and if I got same results as for images I will post it here.

Edit:
I didn't say that I think that is the reason why sales going down.

djdpdx · « **Reply #39 on:** February 20, 2012, 00:42 »

Quote from: Danybot on February 19, 2012, 01:44

Quote from: djdpdx on February 18, 2012, 22:48

stockmarketer, this is a roundabout/self-important way of saying that I wouldn't recommend resuming your iStock uploads, nor would I recommend deactivating all of your stuff there, either. Just keep a toe in the water. You can't drown that way.

Regarding deactivation: you have to remember that many buyers look at more than one agency, so you are always competing against yourself when you upload to more than one place. I have a few images that are fairly unique to me, and I have deactivated those from istock. If the price I get for that photo is less on istock than everywhere else, I may end up making more by removing it from the site where I am paid the least for it. On principle, I would rather let an agency that takes a more reasonable percentage commission get my business.

Good points. I'm feeling some immediate remorse given that my initial submission set of 10 to Shutterstock was rejected. Seven of 10 were necessary... they rejected all 10, all of which had been previously accepted to iStockphoto. I guess I need to up my game.

dcdp · « **Reply #40 on:** February 20, 2012, 18:57 »

Quote from: djdpdx on February 20, 2012, 00:42

Quote from: Danybot on February 19, 2012, 01:44
Quote from: djdpdx on February 18, 2012, 22:48

stockmarketer, this is a roundabout/self-important way of saying that I wouldn't recommend resuming your iStock uploads, nor would I recommend deactivating all of your stuff there, either. Just keep a toe in the water. You can't drown that way.

Regarding deactivation: you have to remember that many buyers look at more than one agency, so you are always competing against yourself when you upload to more than one place. I have a few images that are fairly unique to me, and I have deactivated those from istock. If the price I get for that photo is less on istock than everywhere else, I may end up making more by removing it from the site where I am paid the least for it. On principle, I would rather let an agency that takes a more reasonable percentage commission get my business.
Yeah I probably would have waited to be accepted somehwere else before dropping your exclusivity.
Good points. I'm feeling some immediate remorse given that my initial submission set of 10 to Shutterstock was rejected. Seven of 10 were necessary... they rejected all 10, all of which had been previously accepted to iStockphoto. I guess I need to up my game.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Sales in iStock (Read 14163 times)

wut

heywoody

Skylinehunter

dcdp

thaimacky

Noedelhap

Sean Locke Photography

stockmarketer

Jo Ann Snover

djdpdx

lagereek

Danybot

Freezingpictures

dbajurin

djdpdx

dcdp

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors