pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Sales slump  (Read 65400 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #125 on: August 12, 2010, 08:57 »
0
I am now a profitable businessguy thanks for the motivation :)

Flicker is a lot of fun for sure, never been there and won't go :P

Are you sure you're profitable? A few hundred downloads are covering the cost of a D90 and lenses? And software, PC/upgrades, training, books, props, etc.?


« Reply #126 on: August 12, 2010, 09:27 »
0
I don't have expenses my friend :) (got a big house with a big family)

just the new D90 for around 600EUR! sold the D60 for 300EUR :P

lenses got a cheap sigma 200eur and a 50mm for 100eur :P

I have computer since kid, stock or not everybody as a PC no??

software?? yeah I use GIMP for free :)

it is a lot of fun when a person wonders if other is profitable or not... LOL Am I stupid or what?? come on!
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 09:52 by luissantos84 »

SNP

  • Canadian Photographer
« Reply #127 on: August 12, 2010, 09:49 »
0
I'd believe it if Thinkstock actually had some clout.  Which they don't given their pitiful Alexa numbers.  They are growing, but their numbers are still laughably low.  SS was undercut by FT in my opinion 2 years ago.  The other agency sub plans seem to undercut SS too.  Everyone seems to want to blame Getty on this issue.  I bet they only wish Thinkstock had that type of industry power.

Here's another interesting statistic:
http://google.com/trends?q=istockphoto.com%2C+photos.com&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Guess who owns photos.com?

I don't understand what Getty wants to achieve. Why do they direct buyers towards sub sites? It must bring less royalties to them and ofc also to us. The only plausible explanation is that they wanna eat into Shutterstock sales. But is SS really such a pain in the ass that they are prepared to sacrifice IS?


If you change the search term istockphoto.com to istockphoto or istock you get a very different graph, of course if you take the .com off photos.com the result is very different yet again!



exactly.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #128 on: August 12, 2010, 09:57 »
0
Everyone keeps talking about Shutterstock and how they need to change. Right now it is my top earner. The commissions may be less, but they sale more, therefore earn more. The way I look at it...if it's not broke...don't fix it. Maybe there is some other reason for iStock's abrupt drop in sales...but if it is from change, I don't think I would want Shutterstock to do the same. That's just my opinion.

vlad_the_imp

« Reply #129 on: August 12, 2010, 09:58 »
0
Quote
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?

I know of one fairly high selling exclusive who left at the end of last year, he said it was a disastrous decision and he's now back as an exclusive.

« Reply #130 on: August 12, 2010, 12:38 »
0
Quote
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?

I know of one fairly high selling exclusive who left at the end of last year, he said it was a disastrous decision and he's now back as an exclusive.

Of course it was. If you are any distance up the ladder, then once you are exclusive you are trapped. Quitting means an instant slump in income of up to 50% back then, more like 60-70% now. To get that back you have to start building a reputation on three or four other sites, submitting all your old files, risking rejection if they are not up to today's standard, and having to establish yourself in the search order.

No exclusive worth his salt is going to quit Istock until things get a hell of a lot worse than they are now. If you ever see istock diamonds scurrying up out of the warm, womb-like hold to dive into the cruel waters of independence then you will know that the ship is already half under water.

At the same time, there is no way of knowing if a long-established exclusive might not have made more by spreading his/her effort between sites from the start. Probably not much less, anyway. It is trying to change over that is likely to see you fall on your arse. And the fall is worse going from iS to non-exclusive than the other way round.

« Reply #131 on: August 12, 2010, 13:02 »
0
The sales are somewhat improved and back to pre-F5 level today. Apparently the buyers are using the 25% discount coupon.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #132 on: August 12, 2010, 13:12 »
0
The sales are somewhat improved and back to pre-F5 level today. Apparently the buyers are using the 25% discount coupon.

I think so too...I've had a couple since I checked this morning.

« Reply #133 on: August 12, 2010, 13:14 »
0
The sales are somewhat improved and back to pre-F5 level today. Apparently the buyers are using the 25% discount coupon.

I've had two heavily discounted sales from a single buyer so far today  (same time, same price, same subject) and about a dozen more at normal rates, which is a bit better than recent days but not on a par with last August.

lisafx

« Reply #134 on: August 12, 2010, 13:28 »
0

Of course it was. If you are any distance up the ladder, then once you are exclusive you are trapped. Quitting means an instant slump in income of up to 50% back then, more like 60-70% now. To get that back you have to start building a reputation on three or four other sites, submitting all your old files, risking rejection if they are not up to today's standard, and having to establish yourself in the search order.

No exclusive worth his salt is going to quit Istock until things get a hell of a lot worse than they are now. If you ever see istock diamonds scurrying up out of the warm, womb-like hold to dive into the cruel waters of independence then you will know that the ship is already half under water.

At the same time, there is no way of knowing if a long-established exclusive might not have made more by spreading his/her effort between sites from the start. Probably not much less, anyway. It is trying to change over that is likely to see you fall on your arse. And the fall is worse going from iS to non-exclusive than the other way round.

Perfectly stated Baldrick!  I sometimes get questioned by exclusives about whether they should go non-exclusive and this is always what I try to explain to them (although less articulately than you just summed it up). 

Most of us who have made it to high levels, either as independents or IS exclusives, have made our beds and have to lie in them.  It would be financially devastating to go from IS diamond exclusive to independent. 

But by the same token, this is what ultimately keeps me independent.   At a certain level it is just not practical to "try" exclusivity.  You stand to lose the countless hours you've put in uploading to the various sites, high ranks and favored search positions attained at the other Big Three, and good will earned through long relationships with all the sites and their buyers.  Once you were exclusive at IS it would be virtually impossible to rebuild your rank and relationships with the other sites if you wanted back in.  You would effectively be trapped in IS exclusivity.   

lagereek

« Reply #135 on: August 12, 2010, 14:10 »
0
Blimey Lisa!!   this is beginning to sound serious. Why cant we have the best of two worlds?  half exclusive and half independant?  whats wrong with that, I know many whos had the cake and eaten it.
Well,  just a thought.

best.

« Reply #136 on: August 12, 2010, 14:37 »
0
Blimey Lisa!!   this is beginning to sound serious. Why cant we have the best of two worlds?  half exclusive and half independant?  whats wrong with that, I know many whos had the cake and eaten it.
Well,  just a thought.

best.

Because of Heisenburg's photo uncertainty principle: you cannot simultaneously know the revenue from being exclusive and non-exclusive because trying to pin down one causes certainty about the other to decay. You can measure one or other of these properties for a given photon-grapher, but not both.

« Reply #137 on: August 12, 2010, 14:45 »
0
...But by the same token, this is what ultimately keeps me independent.   At a certain level it is just not practical to "try" exclusivity.  You stand to lose the countless hours you've put in uploading to the various sites, high ranks and favored search positions attained at the other Big Three, and good will earned through long relationships with all the sites and their buyers.  Once you were exclusive at IS it would be virtually impossible to rebuild your rank and relationships with the other sites if you wanted back in.  You would effectively be trapped in IS exclusivity.   

baldrick did state it perfectly, and I am glad I did not do the exclusivity thing when I was contemplating it. baldrick kind of reaffirmed my decision to remain independent. At least I still have some choices being at several sites...exclusives have no choices. Let's hope they are not on a sinking ship and everybody enjoys good sales (including me).

« Reply #138 on: August 12, 2010, 14:46 »
0
If you are any distance up the ladder, then once you are exclusive you are trapped. Quitting means an instant slump in income of up to 50% back then, more like 60-70% now. To get that back you have to start building a reputation on three or four other sites, submitting all your old files, risking rejection if they are not up to today's standard, and having to establish yourself in the search order.

edited for myth busting
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 16:12 by djpadavona »

« Reply #139 on: August 12, 2010, 15:12 »
0
If you are any distance up the ladder, then once you are exclusive you are trapped. Quitting means an instant slump in income of up to 50% back then, more like 60-70% now. To get that back you have to start building a reputation on three or four other sites, submitting all your old files, risking rejection if they are not up to today's standard, and having to establish yourself in the search order.

There's another trap too.  All surplus images uploaded (beyond what is allowed for non-exclusives) are deleted.  So if a non-exclusive is allowed 15 uploads, and you give them 40 files that week because you are exclusive, only the first 15 stay online.  The other 25 get cut.   :'(

I didn't know that. So the moment you opt for non-exclusive, your portfolio could have files thrown out without regard for how well they have performed? Just on the basis that if you had been non-exclusive back then, you couldn't have uploaded so many?

If you rejoin the programme, do they reactivate those files? I suppose they would.

« Reply #140 on: August 12, 2010, 15:14 »
0
I didn't know that. So the moment you opt for non-exclusive, your portfolio could have files thrown out without regard for how well they have performed? Just on the basis that if you had been non-exclusive back then, you couldn't have uploaded so many?

Yes that is correct unfortunately.

If you rejoin the programme, do they reactivate those files? I suppose they would.

I don't know.  I would hope so but I wouldn't want to count on it.

« Reply #141 on: August 12, 2010, 15:23 »
0
There's another trap too.  All surplus images uploaded (beyond what is allowed for non-exclusives) are deleted.  So if a non-exclusive is allowed 15 uploads, and you give them 40 files that week because you are exclusive, only the first 15 stay online.  The other 25 get cut.   :'(

*Groan* Oh no __ not this old codswallop being trotted out yet again. What is it about these 'microstock myths' that keeps them being endlessly regurgitated no matter how many times they have been proven to be untrue?

Here's Rob Sylvan's answer to that question from this very forum;

"This interpretation is completely incorrect. Canceling exclusivity does not result in all your content being removed from the site. All that happens is that your content is "removed" from being considered exclusive after 30 days (i.e., removed from exclusive-only searches, promotions, royalties, etc). After 90 days you can apply again to become exclusive if you wish.

I would encourage anyone with questions/concerns about the Artist Supply Agreement to contact iStock Contributor Relations directly."

vonkara

« Reply #142 on: August 12, 2010, 15:25 »
0
I am now a profitable businessguy thanks for the motivation :)

Flicker is a lot of fun for sure, never been there and won't go :P

Are you sure you're profitable? A few hundred downloads are covering the cost of a D90 and lenses? And software, PC/upgrades, training, books, props, etc.?

That's what I thought, there is people willing to pay to be called a photographer

« Reply #143 on: August 12, 2010, 15:26 »
0
Wow, thanks for pointing that out Gostwyck.  I'm free!   ;D

Seriously, I've read that a thousand times over and believed it was true.  Never once saw anyone question it.  Glad you set me straight, and sorry for the misinformation spread.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 15:49 by djpadavona »

« Reply #144 on: August 12, 2010, 15:36 »
0
^  And here's a similar comment from Rob in an iStock forum...

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=84027&page=1

part way down the page.

« Reply #145 on: August 12, 2010, 15:50 »
0
Definitely good to know.  Thank you for dispelling that myth.  And I was being sarcastic above, obviously.  I love working with iStock exclusively.  Very good people over there.

« Reply #146 on: August 12, 2010, 16:04 »
0
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?

I don't think the few people commenting here has any statistical relevance. I've been fine since F5 (well, as fine as I was before it), and lisafx is saying the same. So we certainly can't come to any conclusions yet about the effect it has had.

« Reply #147 on: August 12, 2010, 16:10 »
0
I am now a profitable businessguy thanks for the motivation :)

Flicker is a lot of fun for sure, never been there and won't go :P

Are you sure you're profitable? A few hundred downloads are covering the cost of a D90 and lenses? And software, PC/upgrades, training, books, props, etc.?

That's what I thought, there is people willing to pay to be called a photographer

Microstockgroup at his best! :) I won't continue this discussion once it is * ridiculous, have a nice summer!

« Reply #148 on: August 12, 2010, 16:10 »
0
I haven't noticed a difference associated with F5 either.  The summer has been dog slow, so no changes.

« Reply #149 on: August 12, 2010, 16:42 »
0
Downloads are back to normal now. Just had a bad couple of days.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
5668 Views
Last post June 07, 2007, 16:44
by hatman12
13 Replies
3568 Views
Last post July 19, 2011, 11:10
by ToniFlap
8 Replies
2242 Views
Last post July 04, 2012, 16:58
by wut
17 Replies
2085 Views
Last post February 04, 2014, 17:40
by Rinderart
5 Replies
1670 Views
Last post March 04, 2014, 12:01
by gbalex

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results