MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Statistics shows IS is falling  (Read 17786 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 01, 2010, 16:35 »
0
Every months in a year is different so it is pretty difficult to compare them to each other and make a judgement of how your things are progressing. But I like to compare the same month of consecutive years - from this you can see how your microstock business goes. There is a trend I realized about a year ago: IS is falling... well... other agencies are growing while IS doesn't or slightly even decreasing. There is the graph that tells you everything.



I am steadily uploading to each of these sites and my portfolio is growing and growing. SS and FTL is clearly rewarding it, but on IS I am having less downloads then two years ago even if I doubled or quadrupled my portfolio. This is interesting... worrying... well, I know IS doesn't care. What is bad. I liked them.


« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2010, 16:50 »
0
Don't mix up wishfull thinking with statistcs. you are a single case from over 35K contributors.
And don't forget that for exclusives the picture might be completly different.

jen

« Reply #2 on: October 01, 2010, 17:01 »
0
Maybe the types of images you sell aren't the types of images buyers search for at iStock? There could be a number of reasons for this but I don't think it's proof that iStock is failing.

« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2010, 17:04 »
0
Yeah, I can't say that is true for me. My numbers were better at IS this year. My numbers at SS, were about the same as last year (not really any growth despite uploading a lot). DT was kind of a wash. I took a big hit from the royalty reduction last year, but gained most of it back. FT grew from last year, but kind of peaked this year. Overall, my numbers were kind of stagnant this year. The smaller agencies grew, but the bigger ones didn't do much. I may have hit that wall everyone is talking about though. I guess I'll need to reach back into my bag of tricks to improve my numbers.

« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2010, 17:33 »
0
Don't mix up wishfull thinking with statistcs. you are a single case from over 35K contributors.
And don't forget that for exclusives the picture might be completly different.

Maybe you are right. But I am around the 80th position in all time total downloads according to istockcharts and I am still climbing in positions. Not too many independents are listed before me. So I do not have a reason to think my files are not suitable for istock.

« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2010, 17:55 »
0
Id be laughing all the way to the bank with that many flames in my port.  Youve reached a temporary plateu maybe, thats all, I think.

« Reply #6 on: October 01, 2010, 18:05 »
0
Don't mix up wishfull thinking with statistcs. you are a single case from over 35K contributors.
And don't forget that for exclusives the picture might be completly different.

Maybe you are right. But I am around the 80th position in all time total downloads according to istockcharts and I am still climbing in positions. Not too many independents are listed before me. So I do not have a reason to think my files are not suitable for istock.

78 to be exact :)
This does change the picture a bit but here are 2 other explenations:
1. Giving exclusives a higher best match boost then before.
2. You upload much more images to other sites then IS.


I can tell you I took a peak at someones port (diamond exclusive) and he DIDNT add any photos for over a year and he sees a growth from year to year.
again, you are only an individual case and you can not deduct from this a thing.

Very impressive port and d/ls BTW.

« Reply #7 on: October 01, 2010, 18:25 »
0
I can tell you I took a peak at someones port (diamond exclusive) and he DIDNT add any photos for over a year and he sees a growth from year to year.

Yes, IS is pretty good in staying on the level without new uploads. This is their strongest side. But also this is where my problem lies. Only old files are selling. My port is nearly unsensible for new uploads. Only my old images are selling, this is why my downloads are not increasing or slightly decreasing even if I add a lot of new/better files. That might be different for exclusives... but I talked to same and took a look at some ports... fery few uploads on the recent pages. This is where the other two agencies are different. While they are still selling the old bestsellers they are also selling the better and updated new uploads as well. Please take a look at the graph I attached. Something happened around the end of 2009: the IS curves started to go down while the others are extremly turning upwards. 
Do not misunderstand me, I am not here to blame IS but to understand and hear opposing voices. I am losing my faith in IS but I want it back :)

« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2010, 03:06 »
0
I have lost my faith in istock.  My sales have a similar pattern, new images haven't sold much for a long time now.  Exclusives have been given more advantages with better image placement and all the collections but we are all going to get a commission cut and I can't tolerate that.  Thinkstock has probably damaged istock sales and I don't want to have anything to do with that either, I would much prefer subs buyers went to Shutterstock who pay me much more and have my much bigger portfolio.

I have stopped uploading to istock but that's not going to make much difference, with new images not selling much.  Contributors have shown in the past that they will put up with almost anything the sites do.  A few take some action but it isn't enough.  I think the only hope now is for buyers to be put off by the higher prices and go to the other sites.  I am spending more time now building up my footage portfolio on Pond5 and my alamy RM portfolio, to move away from the greedy microstock sites.

« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2010, 04:21 »
0
Makes me wonder if any of the other exclusivity programs make sense.
Why don't SS have exclusivity ?? they can easly hurt many competing MS sites like this.

« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2010, 04:22 »
0
Id be laughing all the way to the bank with that many flames in my port.  Youve reached a temporary plateu maybe, thats all, I think.

Plateu? Look at SS and FT on the same graph. They do not look very flat to me.

« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2010, 04:30 »
0
Id be laughing all the way to the bank with that many flames in my port.  Youve reached a temporary plateu maybe, thats all, I think.

Plateu? Look at SS and FT on the same graph. They do not look very flat to me.

No they dont, but I was talking about Istock. 

« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2010, 05:54 »
0
Quote
I have lost my faith in istock.  My sales have a similar pattern, new images haven't sold much for a long time now. 
Yes, you're right Sharpshot, I see also that my last upload till august  aren't downloaded or very few, that's different than other years, I'm stopping uploading also...and wait...wait...

« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2010, 06:08 »
0
Quote
I have lost my faith in istock.  My sales have a similar pattern, new images haven't sold much for a long time now. 
Yes, you're right Sharpshot, I see also that my last upload till august  aren't downloaded or very few, that's different than other years, I'm stopping uploading also...and wait...wait...

Our personal stats: out of the 260 photos we uploaded in the last 60 days only 34 where downloaded. very frustrating!

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2010, 15:46 »
0
Why don't SS have exclusivity ?? they can easly hurt many competing MS sites like this.

Please don't! At SS, where're all equal. No favoritism in the search results. No different price points. And it's the best earning site for many.
It ain't broke, don't fix it if.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2010, 15:48 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2010, 16:31 »
0
Why don't SS have exclusivity ?? they can easly hurt many competing MS sites like this.

Please don't! At SS, where're all equal. No favoritism in the search results. No different price points. And it's the best earning site for many.
It ain't broke, don't fix it if.
They don't have to do it the same way istock have.  I think image exclusivity is a good option, contributor exclusivity only is the problem with istock.  Some of the other sites already offer image exclusivity to all of us, that's fair and I think SS should try it.

RacePhoto

« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2010, 21:22 »
0
Why don't SS have exclusivity ?? they can easly hurt many competing MS sites like this.

Please don't! At SS, where're all equal. No favoritism in the search results. No different price points. And it's the best earning site for many.
It ain't broke, don't fix it if.
They don't have to do it the same way istock have.  I think image exclusivity is a good option, contributor exclusivity only is the problem with istock.  Some of the other sites already offer image exclusivity to all of us, that's fair and I think SS should try it.

I would drop the others so fast it would make people dizzy. All my RF on SS would be perfect.

« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2010, 23:45 »
0
Every months in a year is different so it is pretty difficult to compare them to each other and make a judgement of how your things are progressing. But I like to compare the same month of consecutive years - from this you can see how your microstock business goes. There is a trend I realized about a year ago: IS is falling... well... other agencies are growing while IS doesn't or slightly even decreasing. There is the graph that tells you everything.



I am steadily uploading to each of these sites and my portfolio is growing and growing. SS and FTL is clearly rewarding it, but on IS I am having less downloads then two years ago even if I doubled or quadrupled my portfolio. This is interesting... worrying... well, I know IS doesn't care. What is bad. I liked them.


You know what, with my port you have to switch IS graphs with SS ones... I am still seeing lots of growth on IS, but my SS sales leveled off 2 years ago - they are not falling but not raising at all, in spite of lots of new images. Go figure! I gave up trying to figure out what's going on. Maybe the reason is that agencies advertise to different markets - on some you sell well, on others not that much...? or maybe there is some mysterious database effect, like a black hole - once you fall into one, there is no coming back.... Or maybe I pissed off someone on SS and they started to push down my images in search results and you pissed off someone on IS?   :-) Anyhow, I can not find any rational explanation:)

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2010, 02:13 »
0
Why don't SS have exclusivity ?? they can easly hurt many competing MS sites like this.

Please don't! At SS, where're all equal. No favoritism in the search results. No different price points. And it's the best earning site for many.
It ain't broke, don't fix it if.
They don't have to do it the same way istock have.  I think image exclusivity is a good option, contributor exclusivity only is the problem with istock.  Some of the other sites already offer image exclusivity to all of us, that's fair and I think SS should try it.

SS is already paying one of the highest subscription commissions in industry. Could they really pay us more for exclusivity? Or would they have - in the long run - to lower commissions for non-exclusive images (which wouldn't be fair)? I am afraid the total payout for an agency must stay the same more or less, that's why I don't want exclusivity at SS.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 02:27 by microstockphoto.co.uk »

« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2010, 02:30 »
0
Or maybe I pissed off someone on SS and they started to push down my images in search results and you pissed off someone on IS?   :-) Anyhow, I can not find any rational explanation:)

Yes Elena, this something what comes into my mind many times. Search engine placement, that can be the most probable reason for such discrepancies.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your stats, I need every incentives for not to stop new uploads to IS.

« Reply #20 on: October 03, 2010, 02:53 »
0
Why don't SS have exclusivity ?? they can easly hurt many competing MS sites like this.

Please don't! At SS, where're all equal. No favoritism in the search results. No different price points. And it's the best earning site for many.
It ain't broke, don't fix it if.
They don't have to do it the same way istock have.  I think image exclusivity is a good option, contributor exclusivity only is the problem with istock.  Some of the other sites already offer image exclusivity to all of us, that's fair and I think SS should try it.

SS is already paying one of the highest subscription commissions in industry. Could they really pay us more for exclusivity? Or would they have - in the long run - to lower commissions for non-exclusive images (which wouldn't be fair)? I am afraid the total payout for an agency must stay the same more or less, that's why I don't want exclusivity at SS.
I think they could easily double the price for exclusive subs and pay us double the commission or do what DT are already doing and increase subs prices of the more popular images.  There's a huge gap between subs and pay per download prices, buyers have shown they don't mind paying more for exclusive content and it gives sites something the others don't have.

Think how quickly SS could have 1 million exclusive images, especially with exclusives leaving istock and not liking the thought of uploading to multiple sites.

And SS are now my 5th placed pay per download site, with fast growth.  They could get in to the top 4 just for PPD.  So they aren't just a subs site anymore and all their rivals have exclusive images.  And they own BigStock that badly needs some help and they could share an exclusive collection.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 02:59 by sharpshot »

« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2010, 04:31 »
0
I'm a little up at the moment, but then I've been through so many best match changes that I dont bother with stats for IS, what I got this month is what I got, 20th of next month best match may change and my sales may double or they may half, who knows?

« Reply #22 on: October 03, 2010, 04:40 »
0
I think they could easily double the price for exclusive subs and pay us double the commission or do what DT are already doing and increase subs prices of the more popular images.  There's a huge gap between subs and pay per download prices, buyers have shown they don't mind paying more for exclusive content and it gives sites something the others don't have.

Think how quickly SS could have 1 million exclusive images, especially with exclusives leaving istock and not liking the thought of uploading to multiple sites.

And SS are now my 5th placed pay per download site, with fast growth.  They could get in to the top 4 just for PPD.  So they aren't just a subs site anymore and all their rivals have exclusive images.  And they own BigStock that badly needs some help and they could share an exclusive collection.

No they couldn't. SS really don't need to take any lessons from DT. SS works because it is such a simple formula. SS customers don't value exclusivity of images so would not be prepared to pay more for them.

Did you ever read Cuppacoffee's excellent description of how her company operate their SS subscription and their attitude to our 'art'? Here it is;

"Buyers are not as educated as we contributors give them credit for. They may know that subscription prices at both places are the same but they assume that both sites are providing "different" images. They may not even know about the subscription prices as the business manager purchases the subscription and someone in that position is even more clueless as to how buying stock imagery works. The business manager assumes that since both sites are "cheap", they can give the designers a subscription to both sites and thus access to many more images. They do not know that there are duplicates, or even know, or care, how the images got to the sites in the first place. They do not know if they were submitted by "professionals," or hobbyists.

Designers in this type of business do not know about the inner workings of microstock in general. They read no forums, no sites about how or what microstock is, no industry reports, no photography sites in general. They don't care to know. They just want cheap images fast. They don't care about a site's design, they mainly care if the Search function is easy to use and gives them the results they want. Prices may be the same at both sites but designers don't know that contributors can submit to more than one place. They think in broad terms. They may even buy the same image twice because their immediate need is to find an image fast and use it at that moment. Since it is inexpensive to do that they search the site before searching their previous downloads. One designer may buy the same image as their counterpart on the other side of the building because it is "find it, use it, store it," and the image probably sits in limbo after it's use.

We think that each image we submit is a work of art, we get mad when it sells for a few pennies and we want to track how each image is used. The buyers in my industry think of each image as a commodity. A commodity that has a price that is determined as a function of its marketability. They need throwaway images so why shouldn't they be cheap? To answer your original question (I tend to go on and on) the buyers in my industry think they have access to many images because they have subscriptions at multiple sites, they have no clue about duplicates. If they run across the same image at both places it is of no consequence and they don't take the time to think about why."

« Reply #23 on: October 03, 2010, 05:06 »
0
I think they could easily double the price for exclusive subs and pay us double the commission or do what DT are already doing and increase subs prices of the more popular images.  There's a huge gap between subs and pay per download prices, buyers have shown they don't mind paying more for exclusive content and it gives sites something the others don't have.

Think how quickly SS could have 1 million exclusive images, especially with exclusives leaving istock and not liking the thought of uploading to multiple sites.

And SS are now my 5th placed pay per download site, with fast growth.  They could get in to the top 4 just for PPD.  So they aren't just a subs site anymore and all their rivals have exclusive images.  And they own BigStock that badly needs some help and they could share an exclusive collection.

No they couldn't. SS really don't need to take any lessons from DT. SS works because it is such a simple formula. SS customers don't value exclusivity of images so would not be prepared to pay more for them.

Did you ever read Cuppacoffee's excellent description of how her company operate their SS subscription and their attitude to our 'art'? Here it is;

"Buyers are not as educated as we contributors give them credit for. They may know that subscription prices at both places are the same but they assume that both sites are providing "different" images. They may not even know about the subscription prices as the business manager purchases the subscription and someone in that position is even more clueless as to how buying stock imagery works. The business manager assumes that since both sites are "cheap", they can give the designers a subscription to both sites and thus access to many more images. They do not know that there are duplicates, or even know, or care, how the images got to the sites in the first place. They do not know if they were submitted by "professionals," or hobbyists.

Designers in this type of business do not know about the inner workings of microstock in general. They read no forums, no sites about how or what microstock is, no industry reports, no photography sites in general. They don't care to know. They just want cheap images fast. They don't care about a site's design, they mainly care if the Search function is easy to use and gives them the results they want. Prices may be the same at both sites but designers don't know that contributors can submit to more than one place. They think in broad terms. They may even buy the same image twice because their immediate need is to find an image fast and use it at that moment. Since it is inexpensive to do that they search the site before searching their previous downloads. One designer may buy the same image as their counterpart on the other side of the building because it is "find it, use it, store it," and the image probably sits in limbo after it's use.

We think that each image we submit is a work of art, we get mad when it sells for a few pennies and we want to track how each image is used. The buyers in my industry think of each image as a commodity. A commodity that has a price that is determined as a function of its marketability. They need throwaway images so why shouldn't they be cheap? To answer your original question (I tend to go on and on) the buyers in my industry think they have access to many images because they have subscriptions at multiple sites, they have no clue about duplicates. If they run across the same image at both places it is of no consequence and they don't take the time to think about why."


Not enterly true.  as my most recent GF was an art director for one of the biggest local advertising agency, she explained to me they had used at least 3 different MS sites and first of all had a table of legal issues with each site, since the RF license in each site isnt exactly the same and they each allow a different legal use of the image. in addition many times she would search for something very specific which could be found on one site but not the other.  they used to download hundreds of images a month.  another thing they didnt care about is the image price, nobody cared if the image would cost 5$ or 10$ for a 300K budget.

« Reply #24 on: October 03, 2010, 05:31 »
0
...SS customers don't value exclusivity of images so would not be prepared to pay more for them...
So they should ignore the fact that the biggest site that does have lots of exclusive contributors and buyers that do value exclusive images is in trouble and just cater for their current customers? 

I like that they have kept it simple and I don't want to see them follow the way DT or any other site do it but I really think there is an opportunity now and I wish they would try higher priced exclusive images.  They have made one big change with pay per download and that has worked well, why limit themselves to the cheap end of the market?

« Reply #25 on: October 03, 2010, 05:39 »
0
So they should ignore the fact that the biggest site that does have lots of exclusive contributors and buyers that do value exclusive images is in trouble and just cater for their current customers? 

I like that they have kept it simple and I don't want to see them follow the way DT or any other site do it but I really think there is an opportunity now and I wish they would try higher priced exclusive images.  They have made one big change with pay per download and that has worked well, why limit themselves to the cheap end of the market?

You can't directly compare IS and SS __ their business models are at opposite ends of the spectrum and are targeted at different market sectors. SS would have to offer me at least 4x more commission for exclusivity to be any realistic incentive. Forget about it. It's never going to happen.

« Reply #26 on: October 03, 2010, 09:11 »
0
^^^I don't think Getty/istock will leave shutterstock's market alone, just look at thinkstock, isn't that direct competition to SS?  Limiting themselves to the low price end of the market that is getting more competitive doesn't seem like the best option to me.  And as they have been successful with PPD, I don't think it is beyond them to work out a way to sell exclusive images that benefits them and us.

lisafx

« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2010, 14:34 »
0
Well, perhaps one of the biggest selling points Shutterstock has going for it is that it DOESN'T have all the complicated different pricing.  Rather than competing with all the others by doing the same things, they may be better off competing via their simplicity.  

Surely there are buyers that value a site where everything costs the same... ?

Istock's confusing price tiers and inequal treatment of contributors is causing its demise.  It should be used as a cautionary tale, not something to urge other sites to emulate.   :P
« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 14:37 by lisafx »

helix7

« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2010, 10:37 »
0
Well, perhaps one of the biggest selling points Shutterstock has going for it is that it DOESN'T have all the complicated different pricing.  Rather than competing with all the others by doing the same things, they may be better off competing via their simplicity.  

Surely there are buyers that value a site where everything costs the same... ?

Istock's confusing price tiers and inequal treatment of contributors is causing its demise.  It should be used as a cautionary tale, not something to urge other sites to emulate.   :P

Agree 100%. Sell images by subscription, on-demand, size, whatever. But be consistent in pricing. The minute you start getting into different pricing for images based on exclusivity, it puts buyers off. And I think we haven't even seen the backlash from this strategy yet. Buyers are only starting to grumble about the pricing at iStock. As they become more aware of the better options out there, I think we'll start to see more reaction to the iStock method.

This is one of the many reasons I don't buy images at iStock anymore. The royalty change certainly is a factor, but I was moving away from buying at iStock for my design business as much as possible prior to the royalty cut because of the prices. Generally they are too high, and the varying tiers (exclusive, non, e+, vetta, agency) makes the whole shopping experience frustrating.

iStock should be the example of what not do do rather than something to emulate. The company is not properly serving buyers or contributors, and adopting any of iStock's methods would be foolish, in my opinion.

« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2010, 10:45 »
0

Agree 100%. Sell images by subscription, on-demand, size, whatever. But be consistent in pricing. The minute you start getting into different pricing for images based on exclusivity, it puts buyers off. And I think we haven't even seen the backlash from this strategy yet. Buyers are only starting to grumble about the pricing at iStock. As they become more aware of the better options out there, I think we'll start to see more reaction to the iStock method.

This is one of the many reasons I don't buy images at iStock anymore. The royalty change certainly is a factor, but I was moving away from buying at iStock for my design business as much as possible prior to the royalty cut because of the prices. Generally they are too high, and the varying tiers (exclusive, non, e+, vetta, agency) makes the whole shopping experience frustrating.

iStock should be the example of what not do do rather than something to emulate. The company is not properly serving buyers or contributors, and adopting any of iStock's methods would be foolish, in my opinion.

I have no intention of defending Istock, but they are not the only ones with a complicated pricing structure.

At both FT and DT the prices for different images can vary wildly based on their levels systems (image based at DT, contributor based at FT). And at FT you have the additional effect of their Infinite Collection.

I think "complicated" alone is not the issue, but probably they are pushing too much expensive content to the front of searches...

« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2010, 11:14 »
0
...SS customers don't value exclusivity of images so would not be prepared to pay more for them...
So they should ignore the fact that the biggest site that does have lots of exclusive contributors and buyers that do value exclusive images is in trouble and just cater for their current customers? 

I don't believe buyers value "exclusive images" at all, and I don't think iStock thinks that, either. That's why they will not offer image exclusivity.

For a buyer, there is nothing "exclusive" at all about iStock's exclusive images. They are being used everywhere.

The thing that "artist exclusivity" gives iStock is the claim that it has locked-in a large proportion of the top echelon of microstockers. That persuades buyers that the widest range of high-quality images is available at iStock. That is what their pricing premium is built on. It's nothing to do with a particular photo being exclusive to them.

If the idea got out that there are equally good artists with the same sort of image volume at the top of the other sites, iStock's business model would crumble.

« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2010, 11:46 »
0
What I don't seem to understand is why all of you think you are smarter then IS (or the rest of them) to know what is best for them ? they have been doing this for years and are worth well over 1B $  I guess they are doing SOMETHING right...

nruboc

« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2010, 11:48 »
0
What I don't seem to understand is why all of you think you are smarter then IS (or the rest of them) to know what is best for them ? they have been doing this for years and are worth well over 1B $  I guess they are doing SOMETHING right...

Well, if you consider screwing the contributors as doing something right, then yes, they are doing SOMETHING right

« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2010, 11:53 »
0
What I don't seem to understand is why all of you think you are smarter then IS (or the rest of them) to know what is best for them ? they have been doing this for years and are worth well over 1B $  I guess they are doing SOMETHING right...

That's a good point, and I'm sure they have thought these changes through. It just doesn't appear that they have from my perspective.

« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2010, 12:35 »
0
Quote
At both FT and DT the prices for different images can vary wildly based on their levels systems (image based at DT, contributor based at FT). And at FT you have the additional effect of their Infinite Collection.

I buy from Dreamstime BECAUSE of their tiered pricing. I can sort photos by number of downloads and find great level 1 images that aren't on every piece of advertising in the world already. So I get more unique imagery for a lower price.

« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2010, 12:51 »
0
Or maybe I pissed off someone on SS and they started to push down my images in search results and you pissed off someone on IS?   :-) Anyhow, I can not find any rational explanation:)

Yes Elena, this something what comes into my mind many times. Search engine placement, that can be the most probable reason for such discrepancies.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your stats, I need every incentives for not to stop new uploads to IS.

They don't make it easy to upload to them, too! Every time there is time to upload to Istock we struggle with the disambiguation and the need to go through the files one by one, sometimes ridiculous requirements for model releases and such (and then the files get rejected because the term "human face" apparently is not applicable for a close up portrait of a human (face)). I don't know if we could keep up uploading if we didn't still see some growth there. At least with SS uploading is still a breeze so we just throw files up there because we already have them.
I know how disappointing it can be to see no visible results of 2-3 years work on some agencies. I do have very strong suspicions that their search engines get manually adjusted somehow. You still do amazing work, you latest stuff should be selling at least as well as your old images. Yes there is more competition, but there is not THAT MUCH more competition these days. We got maybe 10 strong new players in the last couple of years (in photography), it would dilute your sales but not to the point of no growth at all.

« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2010, 14:35 »
0
What I don't seem to understand is why all of you think you are smarter then IS (or the rest of them) to know what is best for them ? they have been doing this for years and are worth well over 1B $  I guess they are doing SOMETHING right...


I don't think anyone claims to be smarter by criticizing something a company does. And it a very common business mistake for companies in a growing market to assume that they grew because of their genius business decisions and get very puzzled when things suddenly take a turn for the worse. You can't argue with the growth and the results, but sometimes there are external factors that are more responsible for the growth - as in microstock as a whole has grown tremendously, in part helped by the recession and downturn in ad spending.

I think the concern that is having great profits isn't enough and that they risk damaging the business long term by what they're doing. Companies can often get very blinkered in their views - and once you've been around the block a few times and have seen it first hand you recognize the patterns. Not smarter than anyone, just accumulated experiences...

« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2010, 15:10 »
0
When a top executive of a billion dollar company openly states that after their latest actions they have no right to expect anybody to trust them any longer, I think it is safe to say that they themselves know they have lost their way.

As for whether they will get away with this and boost their profits next year - very likely they will, but that won't prove their critics wrong because boosting profits at the expense of losing the trust of those you deal with is a dangerous gamble. Not that it will matter to the current owners if they manage to sell it at an inflated price before the pigeons come home to roost. If that happens, it will indeed have been a brilliant move from their, short-term, perspective.

« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2010, 15:22 »
0
What I don't seem to understand is why all of you think you are smarter then IS (or the rest of them) to know what is best for them ? they have been doing this for years and are worth well over 1B $  I guess they are doing SOMETHING right...

Because the people actually pulling the strings at Istockphoto are Getty management. You know about them don't you? They're the folk who brought Getty to it's knees a couple of years ago causing the shareholders to sell out cheap to H&F. I wouldn't trust them to run my bath let alone a business. It was their intense greed and unwillingness to adapt to the market and business conditions that lead to their downfall back then and it looks to me that they're up to their old tricks again.

« Reply #39 on: October 04, 2010, 15:39 »
0
What I don't seem to understand is why all of you think you are smarter then IS (or the rest of them) to know what is best for them ? they have been doing this for years and are worth well over 1B $  I guess they are doing SOMETHING right...

Because the people actually pulling the strings at Istockphoto are Getty management. You know about them don't you? They're the folk who brought Getty to it's knees a couple of years ago causing the shareholders to sell out cheap to H&F. I wouldn't trust them to run my bath let alone a business. It was their intense greed and unwillingness to adapt to the market and business conditions that lead to their downfall back then and it looks to me that they're up to their old tricks again.

I have to agree with you Gostwyck - from the moment they bought Istock they started to screw things up slowly but surely. Yeah they did bring advertising dollars with one hand, but with the other hand they are slowly killing the business. Like all corporations do. In my opinion, all big corps should be banned - there is something inherently wrong with that institution. They cause too much damage.

« Reply #40 on: October 04, 2010, 16:01 »
0

In my opinion, all big corps should be banned - there is something inherently wrong with that institution. They cause too much damage.

I couldn't agree more. You ARE wise. :)

« Reply #41 on: October 04, 2010, 16:26 »
0
big corporations have a lot more power these days than most countries. And when the bottom line is all about profit, humans get screwed all the time.

« Reply #42 on: October 04, 2010, 17:04 »
0

In my opinion, all big corps should be banned - there is something inherently wrong with that institution. They cause too much damage.

I couldn't agree more. You ARE wise. :)

And I thought this is a MS site, didn't know communism is still that common...
Hell why not ask the government to take over IS like they did with GM ?

The 2 viable options you guys have are simple:
1. Pull out your port.
2. You all seem to know how to run a MS site so well. Why not put your money where your mouth is and open one your selves?

Banning big corporations, what kind of BS is that ?!?!
Who will build youre cars you drive? who will supply you with electricity? phones? Water?

Grow up people

« Reply #43 on: October 04, 2010, 18:24 »
0

In my opinion, all big corps should be banned - there is something inherently wrong with that institution. They cause too much damage.

I couldn't agree more. You ARE wise. :)

And I thought this is a MS site, didn't know communism is still that common...
Hell why not ask the government to take over IS like they did with GM ?

The 2 viable options you guys have are simple:
1. Pull out your port.
2. You all seem to know how to run a MS site so well. Why not put your money where your mouth is and open one your selves?

Banning big corporations, what kind of BS is that ?!?!
Who will build youre cars you drive? who will supply you with electricity? phones? Water?

Grow up people

Umm... please don't take offense but it looks like you're one good example of a person completely brainwashed by corporate world.... you really think we won't be able to survive without corps?  Is it corps or commies in your world, with no alternatives? Istock achieved tremendous success as a small startup company, oh my God how did they ever do that?
And really,  I'd much prefer smaller  privately owned companies to build my cars - they would be much safer, more efficient, geez, they'd all be electric or run on some other cool and clean technology by now. My water would be much safer and cleaner, my electric power sustainable, my food nutritious and safe and not causing decease and obesity. The problem with big corps is that first they kill all competition and then they do whatever they want, which is always driven by insatiable  greed.... But wait - this is really capitalism 101, how old are you - 16? you didn't get to take that course in high school yet?

« Reply #44 on: October 04, 2010, 18:39 »
0
The problem with big corps is that first they kill all competition and then they do whatever they want, which is always driven by insatiable  greed....

... and of course if the 'big corps' happen to be banks then they wield such almighty financial power that governments are too frightened to regulate them ... so then the banks get really greedy ... and end up gambling all the money away and leaving all of us with the colossal debt that they've generated.

« Reply #45 on: October 04, 2010, 18:56 »
0
I think there are some good and bad things to be said about large corporations.

On the good side, there is an economic benefit for everyone involved when there are greater economies of scale - buying and selling more stuff to more people - and also when people are more highly specialized they can be more productive.  For example in a tiny camera company the same person might have to double as both a machinist and an optician but in huge old Canon and Nikon these are highly specialized trades.

On the bad side, corporations once they reach a certain size can become deaf to their customers and suppliers.  They become cumbersome and unprofitable because their employees spend too much time playing internal politics.

In a free market, companies which become too large and cumbersome naturally either fade away, go bankrupt, or they are broken up until their component parts are small and focused enough to be profitable again.

In an UN-free market, very large corporations make up for their lack of profitability by lobbying for governments to prop them up artificially.  These props take many forms but principally they are (1) direct financial subsidies and (2) various regulatory laws which have the effect of squashing competition from smaller, better companies by imposing legal and other barriers which smaller companies cannot afford to surmount.  For example patents are notoriously used by large companies to pummel their upstart competitors.  Also the more complicated that accounting rules become, the harder it is for small companies to do all the paperwork, whereas large companies have huge teams of accountants and massive accounting systems.  Which is why large companies are usually to be found lobbying for more government regulation, behind the scenes.

So large companies cannot "kill" competitors who are smaller, faster, smarter ... unless they get help.

« Reply #46 on: October 04, 2010, 19:22 »
0
Quote
Istock achieved tremendous success as a small startup company, oh my God how did they ever do that?

By selling something that used to cost $300 for $3.

« Reply #47 on: October 04, 2010, 20:00 »
0
Quote
Istock achieved tremendous success as a small startup company, oh my God how did they ever do that?

By selling something that used to cost $300 for $3.

To be more accurate they did it by recognizing that with advances in internet and digital technology something that used to cost $300 now costs $3  .... which some people still fail to recognize 10 years down the road...

« Reply #48 on: October 04, 2010, 22:29 »
0
Quote
Istock achieved tremendous success as a small startup company, oh my God how did they ever do that?

By selling something that used to cost $300 for $3.

To be more accurate they did it by recognizing that with advances in internet and digital technology something that used to cost $300 now costs $3  .... which some people still fail to recognize 10 years down the road...

Wait, this is something of an apples vs oranges argument.
Was the $300 image RM or RF?
The only way to get away with licensing imagery for a few dollars is by selling it over and over and over.
I don't believe that the $300 image was licensed several hundred times over, was it?

« Reply #49 on: October 05, 2010, 06:07 »
0
$300 was for a large royalty-free image (a small royalty-free image would have been about $50 and on some libraries the license would have only granted web usage). Successful royalty-free images would have been licensed multiple times though probably not as many times as the most successful microstock images.

Depending on usage (area of page covered and market sector), a rights-managed image would usually have cost well into four figures -- about 2,000 for an image that was to cover a full-page corporate ad or the whole front face of an item of packaging.

Microstock is royalty-free so, as far as I'm concerned, I'm comparing apples with apples.

rubyroo

« Reply #50 on: October 05, 2010, 06:14 »
0
It's amazing to think of that isn't it?  If those prices were still operative in the microstock model... we'd all be such happy bunnies  ;D

« Reply #51 on: October 05, 2010, 16:03 »
0
Companies are often successful in spite of their management.  Problem is that they believe they're successful because of their management.  Or the conditions which made them successful change, and they don't adapt.  Or both.

Years ago, management consultants Tom Peters and Robert Waterman wrote a bestselling book called In Search of Excellence.  They analyzed a number of large companies with a long track record of success, looking for common threads.  They found them, and preached what they found.  Some years later Peters looked at those excellent companies and found something interesting: that some were still successful, some were on the decline and some were gone completely.  Turns out that identifying successful companies was find for understanding the past but no guide to the future.

And so it will likely be for iStockphoto.  Looking back in a year or two years, we may be able to identify their decline as beginning in September, 2010.  Or not, but I know which way I'd be willing to bet.  As the financial services companies always say (but we rarely listen), past performance is no indicator of future results.

lisafx

« Reply #52 on: October 05, 2010, 16:16 »
0
Companies are often successful in spite of their management.  Problem is that they believe they're successful because of their management.  Or the conditions which made them successful change, and they don't adapt.  Or both.

Years ago, management consultants Tom Peters and Robert Waterman wrote a bestselling book called In Search of Excellence.  They analyzed a number of large companies with a long track record of success, looking for common threads.  They found them, and preached what they found.  Some years later Peters looked at those excellent companies and found something interesting: that some were still successful, some were on the decline and some were gone completely.  Turns out that identifying successful companies was find for understanding the past but no guide to the future.

And so it will likely be for iStockphoto.  Looking back in a year or two years, we may be able to identify their decline as beginning in September, 2010.  Or not, but I know which way I'd be willing to bet.  As the financial services companies always say (but we rarely listen), past performance is no indicator of future results.

Very interesting thoughts Harris.  Seems like lots of large corporations are like Icarus - they fly too close to the sun and then fall to their deaths.  Or as my grandmother would have said "they got too big for their britches"  ;D

« Reply #53 on: October 05, 2010, 17:28 »
0
It's amazing to think of that isn't it?  If those prices were still operative in the microstock model... we'd all be such happy bunnies  ;D

But then it wouldn't be microstock, would it? $300 sounds more like macrostock to me. LOL

rubyroo

« Reply #54 on: October 05, 2010, 17:33 »
0
 :D

I made that sound as though they once were operative in the microstock model, didn't I?!  LOL

RT


« Reply #55 on: October 06, 2010, 04:11 »
0
Companies are often successful in spite of their management.  Problem is that they believe they're successful because of their management. 

Very true

lagereek

« Reply #56 on: October 06, 2010, 04:28 »
0
Companies are often successful in spite of their management.  Problem is that they believe they're successful because of their management. 

Very true

Some time ago there was a British survey, examining the top 20 CEOs in the top 20 most successful Corps in the world. Result was that the overpaid management had not really done a * thing exept just "being there" axing employers and just basically scaring the crap out of people.
Well I suppose thats one way of being effective, isnt it?

« Reply #57 on: October 06, 2010, 04:43 »
0
This years Ig Nobel Prize winner:
Management: Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, and Cesare Garofalo of the University of Catania, Italy, for demonstrating mathematically that organizations would become more efficient if they promoted people at random.[121]

« Reply #58 on: October 08, 2010, 06:57 »
0
I know we've only had the first week of October but my sales at IS are dire. At this rate I'm projected to be 19% down on September and a bewildering 35% down on Oct 2009. Ouch.

As a proportion of total income IS are now down to 29% with SS surging ahead at 32%. PPD sales at SS are continuing to grow strongly and now represent 28% of my income there __ last October they were just 18%.

My data suggests that things are happening and market shares between agencies are slowly changing.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #59 on: October 08, 2010, 07:47 »
0
Makes me wonder if any of the other exclusivity programs make sense.
Why don't SS have exclusivity ?? they can easly hurt many competing MS sites like this.

Exclusivity has been pointless in micrstock for quite some time now, it's just that these sites got kinda big and really slow to react... but it's starting now.

« Reply #60 on: October 08, 2010, 07:56 »
0
I do agree that ISocks customer base is starting to look elsewhere, that is if my Shutterstock and other top tier Agencies earnings of late are anything to go by. Have noticed a big surge not so much in Subs but On Demand and ELs at SS and single purchases at Dreamstime and Fotolia which compensates for what we know is around the corner at IS  ;)

ShadySue

« Reply #61 on: October 08, 2010, 10:17 »
0
I know we've only had the first week of October but my sales at IS are dire.
I'm IS exclusive, but after a good September - $$ well up on Sept 09 if not downloads, this week has been pretty poor. Well below Oct 09 in dls and $$$ . ???
Misery loves company. 

« Reply #62 on: October 08, 2010, 15:19 »
0
our 2c's.

sep 2010 was great! BME, october down 5% since sep but we are still optimistic :)

« Reply #63 on: October 08, 2010, 15:34 »
0
So far, Octuber is on par with a great September. But maybe it could (should) be better. Just beats Sept in Vettas.

« Reply #64 on: October 08, 2010, 16:03 »
0
Exclusivity has been pointless in micrstock for quite some time now, it's just that these sites got kinda big and really slow to react... but it's starting now.

Gosh, thank goodness you came around to point this out with your excellent reasoning for stating so.  I may change my working paradigm now.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #65 on: October 08, 2010, 18:04 »
0
Exclusivity has been pointless in micrstock for quite some time now, it's just that these sites got kinda big and really slow to react... but it's starting now.

Gosh, thank goodness you came around to point this out with your excellent reasoning for stating so.  I may change my working paradigm now.

There wasn't reasoning, it was a simple statement. In short: content got way too generic. You are a smart boy, you can figure out how and why that makes it useless... since they can't just throw it away, they arrange things so they don't have to pay any notable benefits for it. Familiar?

lisafx

« Reply #66 on: October 08, 2010, 18:07 »
0
Exclusivity has been pointless in micrstock for quite some time now, it's just that these sites got kinda big and really slow to react... but it's starting now.

Gosh, thank goodness you came around to point this out with your excellent reasoning for stating so.  I may change my working paradigm now.

There wasn't reasoning, it was a simple statement.

At least he admits it ;D

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #67 on: October 08, 2010, 18:26 »
0
Exclusivity has been pointless in micrstock for quite some time now, it's just that these sites got kinda big and really slow to react... but it's starting now.

Gosh, thank goodness you came around to point this out with your excellent reasoning for stating so.  I may change my working paradigm now.

There wasn't reasoning, it was a simple statement.

At least he admits it ;D

You are both really good at pointing out the obviuos : )) Okay now... I didn't come here with the intention of being mean to you, I do find the way they are treating you dispicable, but I just can't talk about this without pointing out that you did a lot to bring this on yourselves. and right now, you just sit around an take it... or rather have go at me than the people who actually took a nice big sh*t in your lap. Yeah that's reasonable. All you should have done is deactivte your files, non destructive, undoable. When your elders went about making this world a more livable place, they had to fabricate signs, get to the streets and risk getting beaten up by the police, jailed, loosing their jobs, you name it... you just needed clicking around and you couldn't even do that. Shame on you, really.

« Reply #68 on: October 08, 2010, 19:03 »
0
It is always sad to see someone trying to put the blame of his failure on others. Shame on who? On the macrostock shooters that cut off assignement works? Deactivate, what? That's a personal decision based on financial figures.

Luckily, microstockers have learnt the hard way. With a few exceptions, we don't need the bigger studios, the latests expensive gadgets, five assistants, two stylists, two make up artists and one guy to change a lightbulb (just in case) to do a shooting. That implies lots of creativity. That implies to a way better capacity for reacting and adapting to changing situations... What others, years before, weren't able to do.... big and slow armies defeated by guerrillas, if yoy see what I mean.

And should everything fail, what I wouldn't to do is spending seven years in all available forum with all available nick moaning, crying and playing the prophet. I would consider suicide before adopting such clownish attitudes.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2010, 19:25 by loop »

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #69 on: October 08, 2010, 19:27 »
0
"It is always sad to see someone trying to put the blame of his failure on others."

agreed, and that's what you people are doing, in case you haven't noticed...  you too, right now.

"And should everything fail, what I wouldn't to do is spending seven years in all available forum with all available nick moaning, crying and playing the prophet. I would consider suicide before adopting such clowning attitudes"

get a rope then, because that's you. funny how you despise an action while doing it. : ) I registered yesterday, never seen this place before.. but nice rant anyways, If that's any consolidation to you, I'm probably gonna have my say in a few things as it is due in a reasonably free world, and than leave forever, not that interested in all this. than you can go on monaning and crying, making up childish conspiracy theorries abnout some old nicks to all your liking

« Reply #70 on: October 08, 2010, 19:34 »
0
" I registered yesterday, never seen this place before.. "

Oh yesss...

And "registering yesterday for the first time", never having been here before--- you know I've been crying and moaning?? Please, don't be so naive and obvious.

Finally having to get  my arguments and saying "It's you!", denotes you don't have any arguments. Children do that, but they are six or seven and can be excused.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2010, 19:40 by loop »

« Reply #71 on: October 08, 2010, 19:43 »
0
'than leave forever'

Assuming you meant 'then', maybe you could leave sooner -than- later.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #72 on: October 08, 2010, 19:52 »
0
'than leave forever'

Assuming you meant 'then', maybe you could leave sooner -than- later.

your communiction kinda lacks variety. : ) you need to work on that.

I'll leave way before you get bored of yourself, so don't worry

« Reply #73 on: October 08, 2010, 20:21 »
0
ignored by 11 members already, maybe a new record.

back on thread

overall this year Istock is 10% above last years earnings. my portfolio is 20% larger.

earnings at Istock has been down for me since the announcement, lower than june,july and august, which are meant to be some of the lowest earning months.

probably ebb and flow + I haven't uploaded (my massive protest hitting hard at those heartless getty executives in their ivory towers) since the announcement which wouldn't help.

« Reply #74 on: October 08, 2010, 21:24 »
0
I just can't talk about this without pointing out that you did a lot to bring this on yourselves. and right now, you just sit around an take it... or rather have go at me than the people who actually took a nice big sh*t in your lap. Yeah that's reasonable. All you should have done is deactivte your files, non destructive, undoable.

Im getting quite tired of seeing these clueless statements from people who obviously do not take in hundreds or thousands of dollars a week from microstock. Everyone knows what is going on at istock is wrong. All this talk of taking the moral high ground and deactivating or deleting your images on istock must not have that much income to lose because in the end, money talks. For many successful exclusives, there seems to be no viable alternative.

Maybe its getting real crowded on itsock. maybe a ton of independants leave istock. maybe exclusives make more money with less competition. too many maybes

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #75 on: October 09, 2010, 03:24 »
0
I just can't talk about this without pointing out that you did a lot to bring this on yourselves. and right now, you just sit around an take it... or rather have go at me than the people who actually took a nice big sh*t in your lap. Yeah that's reasonable. All you should have done is deactivte your files, non destructive, undoable.

Im getting quite tired of seeing these clueless statements from people who obviously do not take in hundreds or thousands of dollars a week from microstock. Everyone knows what is going on at istock is wrong. All this talk of taking the moral high ground and deactivating or deleting your images on istock must not have that much income to lose because in the end, money talks. For many successful exclusives, there seems to be no viable alternative.

Maybe its getting real crowded on itsock. maybe a ton of independants leave istock. maybe exclusives make more money with less competition. too many maybes

Okay, just sit there take it. Fine with me.

« Reply #76 on: October 09, 2010, 13:28 »
0
I will sit here and take it... since i will be one of the very few that will go up a level. Doesnt mean that i like or agree with the changes

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #77 on: October 09, 2010, 15:41 »
0
I will sit here and take it... since i will be one of the very few that will go up a level. Doesnt mean that i like or agree with the changes

Let's hope I'm not right, but I think the commission cut was the smaller part. The real spanking will come from the search results

« Reply #78 on: October 09, 2010, 16:20 »
0
I will sit here and take it... since i will be one of the very few that will go up a level. Doesnt mean that i like or agree with the changes

Let's hope I'm not right, but I think the commission cut was the smaller part. The real spanking will come from the search results

the search results (best match) is a zero sum game. meaning for every loser there is a winner.

« Reply #79 on: October 09, 2010, 16:30 »
0
I will sit here and take it... since i will be one of the very few that will go up a level. Doesnt mean that i like or agree with the changes

Let's hope I'm not right, but I think the commission cut was the smaller part. The real spanking will come from the search results

the search results (best match) is a zero sum game. meaning for every loser there is a winner.
In terms of dls maybe (unless buyer goes elsewhere). Not in terms of $ though. istock gets more from some sales than others (ignoring size).

traveler1116

« Reply #80 on: October 09, 2010, 16:43 »
0
I will sit here and take it... since i will be one of the very few that will go up a level. Doesnt mean that i like or agree with the changes

Let's hope I'm not right, but I think the commission cut was the smaller part. The real spanking will come from the search results

the search results (best match) is a zero sum game. meaning for every loser there is a winner.

First best match results aren't necessarily zero sum, if the search is so bad buyers leave.  Second, the best match has been and will continue to be tweaked for who IS wants to reward which will be Vetta and Agency producers for now, many long time contributors will lose.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #81 on: October 09, 2010, 17:13 »
0
I will sit here and take it... since i will be one of the very few that will go up a level. Doesnt mean that i like or agree with the changes

Let's hope I'm not right, but I think the commission cut was the smaller part. The real spanking will come from the search results

the search results (best match) is a zero sum game. meaning for every loser there is a winner.

I obviusly ment the current situation with 'outsiders' dumped into it, otherwise it makes no sense.

Altho imho so called damins / 'inspectors' seem to be hijacking the system since god knows when, but I guess that's just accepted as regular busines at a place like that.

« Reply #82 on: October 09, 2010, 19:44 »
0
I obviusly ment the current situation with 'outsiders' dumped into it, otherwise it makes no sense.

Altho imho so called damins / 'inspectors' seem to be hijacking the system since god knows when, but I guess that's just accepted as regular busines at a place like that.

I wouldn't mind a pint of whatever you're drinking. 'Obviusly' truly liberating.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #83 on: October 10, 2010, 03:27 »
0
I obviusly ment the current situation with 'outsiders' dumped into it, otherwise it makes no sense.

Altho imho so called damins / 'inspectors' seem to be hijacking the system since god knows when, but I guess that's just accepted as regular busines at a place like that.

I wouldn't mind a pint of whatever you're drinking. 'Obviusly' truly liberating.

self delusion is cool... for kids

RacePhoto

« Reply #84 on: October 10, 2010, 16:34 »
0
I obviusly ment the current situation with 'outsiders' dumped into it, otherwise it makes no sense.

Altho imho so called damins / 'inspectors' seem to be hijacking the system since god knows when, but I guess that's just accepted as regular busines at a place like that.

I wouldn't mind a pint of whatever you're drinking. 'Obviusly' truly liberating.

self delusion is cool... for kids

Wow another identity rapidly going to the dumpster. Who will you be next time for your brief flock of rants? :D

Name:     molka
Useful Posts:    0
Date Registered:    October 08, 2010, 06:01
Ignored by:    24 members


No I'm not ignoring you, I won't waste the clicks to do it.

« Reply #85 on: October 10, 2010, 17:13 »
0
I obviusly ment the current situation with 'outsiders' dumped into it, otherwise it makes no sense.

Altho imho so called damins / 'inspectors' seem to be hijacking the system since god knows when, but I guess that's just accepted as regular busines at a place like that.

I wouldn't mind a pint of whatever you're drinking. 'Obviusly' truly liberating.

self delusion is cool... for kids

Wow another identity rapidly going to the dumpster. Who will you be next time for your brief flock of rants? :D

Name:     molka
Useful Posts:    0
Date Registered:    October 08, 2010, 06:01
Ignored by:    24 members


No I'm not ignoring you, I won't waste the clicks to do it.

sniff sniff quack waddle molka is a troll


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
28 Replies
7196 Views
Last post March 22, 2008, 15:51
by Tim Markley
Dollar falling

Started by CofkoCof Off Topic

22 Replies
5647 Views
Last post January 20, 2009, 09:23
by null
28 Replies
10317 Views
Last post January 03, 2012, 12:33
by XPTO
3 Replies
1352 Views
Last post November 21, 2012, 17:58
by ruxpriencdiam
15 Replies
3204 Views
Last post June 26, 2013, 10:37
by Phadrea

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results