MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales slump  (Read 65645 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Caz

« Reply #25 on: August 11, 2010, 03:25 »
0
Is there a similar topic like this , on their forum?


Yes, once a month there's a thread to discuss the previous month's sales trends.  Here's the current one http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=238492&page=1  It's restricted to one thread every month because otherwise ten people would start ten new threads every day wondering whether their lack of sales for the last ten minutes is indicative of the end of the microstock world.  ;)


« Reply #26 on: August 11, 2010, 06:25 »
0
July was very bad. -35% in earnings compared to June.
Hopefully August rocks so far.

« Reply #27 on: August 11, 2010, 06:30 »
0
Huge drop for me after the change

« Reply #28 on: August 11, 2010, 07:25 »
0
No sales at all since August 7 (included) - while in July I averaged 1.9 sales per weekday. Not much but I don't remember a 4-day period on IS without any sales at all.

« Reply #29 on: August 11, 2010, 08:01 »
0
I have a noticed an alarming drop in sales since they introduced the new look. :-\

lagereek

« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2010, 08:22 »
0
The new look is fine!  however all this Vetta, E+ and collection business with price increases, no it doesnt help at all.

« Reply #31 on: August 11, 2010, 08:40 »
0
No drop in sales for me either. It looks about the same as july so far

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #32 on: August 11, 2010, 08:46 »
0
The new look is fine!  however all this Vetta, E+ and collection business with price increases, no it doesnt help at all.

I think Vetta was an excellent and necessary move. I think E+ wasn't a good move.

Vetta is somewhat predictable. Images are unqiue, highly styled, or have higher production costs. Higher cost makes more sense. And it's controlled by editors to maintain some consistency.

E+ doesn't make sense to me. Giving contributors control on pricing I think is a bad idea. I think it confuses/frustrates buyers and creates inconsistent pricing. Some contributors are using it as Vetta Jr. but some are putting anything and everything in it. If I were a buyer I'd be looking for a more simple and consistent price structure that I could manage my project budget against.

« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2010, 09:15 »
0
My sales at IS are the same level of lousy that they have been for the last couple of months.  No change here, unfortunately...

Ditto.  I was thinking all the sales had gone over to Non-Exclusive Photogs because of the price increase.  Guess that isn't so.

« Reply #34 on: August 11, 2010, 09:43 »
0
Things will need to rebound in September and October, or I think a lot of exclusives will have second thoughts.  There is a 30 day waiting period for anyone wishing to drop their exclusive status.  I wonder if we'll start to see a drop in the number of exclusives toward the end of August, as a lag from the July debacle?  Is there anywhere on the iStock site which lists the total number of exclusive contributors?  That would be an interesting number to track if it is available.

« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2010, 10:14 »
0
Things will need to rebound in September and October, or I think a lot of exclusives will have second thoughts.  There is a 30 day waiting period for anyone wishing to drop their exclusive status.  I wonder if we'll start to see a drop in the number of exclusives toward the end of August, as a lag from the July debacle?  Is there anywhere on the iStock site which lists the total number of exclusive contributors?  That would be an interesting number to track if it is available.

No, you can drop exclusivity immediately.  There is a 30 day waiting period to re-exclusive.

« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2010, 10:16 »
0
I think they changed the requirements Sean.  From the Exclusive FAQ:

How long am I committed?
If you get cold feet, you can cancel your Exclusive contract with 30 days notice, after providing us with a reason ("it's not you, it's me"). And we'll always take you back, with a 90 day reinstatement waiting period.


http://www.istockphoto.com/sell-stock-photos-exclusivity.php

« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2010, 10:20 »
0
^^^ As far as I recall the terms have always been like that.

I'd be surprised if exclusives were unhappy. Surely, with the massive price increases, you must be earning significantly more than this time last year even if you have fewer sales?

« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2010, 10:25 »
0
Gostwyck -

In my case this is most certainly true.  And for the record, I am currently happy with Exclusivity, but cautious over the site traffic trends.  

But from reading the July Sales thread, there were plenty of exclusives who have seen a drop in earnings from last year, and a more significant drop in DLs.  Many of those exclusives have considerably larger portfolios and are probably a better statistical gage.

Another concern I have read repeatedly on the IS and Indie forums is that new images are simply not selling.  They seem to get a rush of Views at the onset, and then they fade into obscurity.  So it is difficult for many of us to grow our earnings when uploading seems futile.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 10:27 by djpadavona »

« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2010, 10:37 »
0
I also thought new files didn't sell on IS, but then I did a count and I discovered that files uploaded this year account for 10% of my sales and I have increased my portfolio size by 10% over the same period. Clearly, in my case at least, new files sell at the same rate as old ones (maybe slightly faster) but the overall rate at which files are selling is so slow that my recent upload pages are full of zeroes, making it look as if new files do less well than old ones.

Old files have better-looking stats because files were selling three or four times as fast a few years ago (twice as many downloads with half the portfolio size), so the further back you go, the more impressive the sales look, aided both by time and by faster download rates in the past.

« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2010, 11:17 »
0
I'm not a fan of the new web site but I do not believe that it has anything to do with the diminishing sales.

IStock is the only company I know of that is actively trying to convince its customers to go away and start buying from some other place. In this case - ThinkStock, the most beloved sister company.
Cold calling your own customers and asking them to stop buying from you and go do business somewhere else is a policy I've never heard of before. It's gotta have some consequences.
But I trust that the very intelligent people at Getty I keep on hearing about, know what they're doing and we'll all be happy in the end.

There are probably many factors responsible for such declining sales at IStock. ThinkStock being only one of them.
But I do not think the new web site is to blame.

Right now they're offering a 25 % reduction in prices. That should be good news. 
But are they also reducing contributor commissions by the same amount?

lisafx

« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2010, 11:26 »
0

But from reading the July Sales thread, there were plenty of exclusives who have seen a drop in earnings from last year, and a more significant drop in DLs.  

This is what would concern me most if I was exclusive.  The decline in downloads at IS, and the fact that the rate of decline seems to be more extreme than at other sites.  This indicates a problem specific to IS rather than just an industry and economic trend.  

@Fullvalue - rest assured, the downloads have not just shifted to non-exclusives.  Seems like everyone is feeling the pinch.

I am beginning to wonder if IS will be doing away with the end-of-month stats threads soon if the news doesn't start improving...

lisafx

« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2010, 11:28 »
0
Right now they're offering a 25 % reduction in prices. That should be good news. 
But are they also reducing contributor commissions by the same amount?

VERY good question!  For several years now contributor commissions have been tied to credit prices, so it would not surprise me to see our commissions reduced on the sale priced credits.  Does anyone know if this has been answered somewhere? 

lagereek

« Reply #43 on: August 11, 2010, 11:29 »
0
Why cant it just be the most common and obvious??  we have had a nice ride for many years and now the concept is getting worn and torn and with all the agencies, too many contributors, too many files, too much of everything and the first ones that will feel the pain are ofcourse the more expensive agencies.
This is what happend to the Trad-agencies and this is whats beginning to happen now.

best.

nruboc

« Reply #44 on: August 11, 2010, 11:37 »
0
Right now they're offering a 25 % reduction in prices. That should be good news. 
But are they also reducing contributor commissions by the same amount?

VERY good question!  For several years now contributor commissions have been tied to credit prices, so it would not surprise me to see our commissions reduced on the sale priced credits.  Does anyone know if this has been answered somewhere? 

Yes, in the IStock forums, it was definitely confirmed by an iStock admin that this is the case

lisafx

« Reply #45 on: August 11, 2010, 12:01 »
0

Yes, in the IStock forums, it was definitely confirmed by an iStock admin that this is the case

Great.  Just effing wonderful.   >:(

Thanks for confirming this nruboc.  I can't find this discussed anywhere on the site.  Can you post a link? 
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 12:09 by lisafx »

lagereek

« Reply #46 on: August 11, 2010, 12:08 »
0

Yes, in the IStock forums, it was definitely confirmed by an iStock admin that this is the case

Great.  Just effing wonderful.   >:(

Thanks for confirming this nruboc.

Hi Lisa!

yep!  great isnt it?  well if this isnt a confirmation that things are going sour, I dont know what is.

best.

lisafx

« Reply #47 on: August 11, 2010, 12:10 »
0
Where is the istock thread discussing this?  Anyone have a link?  Thanks.

« Reply #48 on: August 11, 2010, 12:11 »
0
Why cant it just be the most common and obvious??  

Surely the most common and obvious explanation is that IStock screwed up its pricing policy dramatically at the start of the year. Six months on and the credits that people found were suddenly devalued are all used up and buyers are looking for cheaper alternatives. Istock has helpfully explained to them, immediately after the shock price rise, that TS is a far more economical place to be and, judging from the way Shutterstock is going, others have found their own alternatives.

Unfortunately, the "special offer" apparently intended to reduce the impact of the pricing mistake is going to mean the second pay cut this year for non-exclusives.

But I still don't understand why a number of people have noticed a sharp sales drop since F5 - if there is no search change, then is there something that buyers are finding confusing or offputting about the new site?

« Reply #49 on: August 11, 2010, 12:17 »
0
Great.  Just effing wonderful.   >:(

Yep, if they've got any sense buyers will be loading up on those 25% discounted credits and them spending them (probably at just the same rate as they would have anyway) over the next year. I suppose it might commit their loyalty to Istock for a few more months but no real reason to believe it will increase the numbers of images they buy.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
5688 Views
Last post June 07, 2007, 16:44
by hatman12
13 Replies
3581 Views
Last post July 19, 2011, 11:10
by ToniFlap
8 Replies
2250 Views
Last post July 04, 2012, 16:58
by wut
17 Replies
2101 Views
Last post February 04, 2014, 17:40
by Rinderart
5 Replies
1685 Views
Last post March 04, 2014, 12:01
by gbalex

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results