Honestly istock isn't the worst thing going right now for me, personally. I only sell vectors, so I'm locked in at 20%, and vectors are very rarely included in their Google Drive type of deals so I'm mostly dodging that bullet.

I'm not thrilled with what's gone on at istock, but really I have more issues with some other companies right now. istock currently doesn't top the list of companies I'm considering pulling the plug on.

Honestly istock isn't the worst thing going right now for me, personally. I only sell vectors, so I'm locked in at 20%, and vectors are very rarely included in their Google Drive type of deals so I'm mostly dodging that bullet.

I'm not thrilled with what's gone on at istock, but really I have more issues with some other companies right now. istock currently doesn't top the list of companies I'm considering pulling the plug on.

can I ask which?

but they must lose a lot when people remove their images or only upload to their rival sites?

Why would this make any difference to IS? The number of files being uploaded daily far exceeds any removed, plus there are 10 million files ( or whatever the number is) already in the database. Why would a few thousand files, or tens of thousands, being removed, make any difference to buyers? The only person affected is the person removing the files. The buyers search for a subject, find thousands of images that are more or less relevant to their search, and buy one. They don't know yours are no longer there, assuming you have removed some, they just buy someone else's.

but they must lose a lot when people remove their images or only upload to their rival sites?

Why would this make any difference to IS? The number of files being uploaded daily far exceeds any removed, plus there are 10 million files ( or whatever the number is) already in the database. Why would a few thousand files, or tens of thousands, being removed, make any difference to buyers? The only person affected is the person removing the files. The buyers search for a subject, find thousands of images that are more or less relevant to their search, and buy one. They don't know yours are no longer there, assuming you have removed some, they just buy someone else's.

I do think it makes some difference.  New images aren't selling much.  They don't seem to be bringing in traffic from Google.  I presume old images that were selling well must of been bringing them traffic from Google?  Now if someone does a Google search for keywords in my 500 best selling images, they'll find them on all the sites other than istock.

I think that might be one reason why Shutterstock doesn't remove old images and the sites that have removed old images haven't been doing as well?

If I delete my images on iStock or close my account

- Will I create some damage to iStock?          No
- Will I make more money with iStock?         No
- Will I make more money with other sites?  No

So what?

What was more important to me was self-respect. I dont deserve to be treated the way they treat everyone, so i was willing to sacrifice my monthly sales with them to keep my self respect. There are always other ways to make up the loss of income, and i have.

Quote from: BoBoBolinski on August 27, 2013, 06:41

I think you are confusing cause and effect. New images not selling much has nothing to do with a few dozen people here removing a few thousand, or even tens of thousands, of files. How are they possibly connected? New files are not selling because the current best match doesn't favour them, and the issue of Google not promoting IS files has been around for ages. If you are non-exclusive at IS you may well be even more disadvantaged by the best match, but don't try and equate the removal of a minute proportion of the overall collection at IS with their imminent demise, because it just ain't like that.Even SS, the darling of MSG, is getting critical posts here from members concerned with poor sales. IS have made lots of stupid mistakes but there are global influences affecting sales, including huge over-supply of images, piracy, global economics etc etc, it's laughable to think that you imagine removing your 500 files is going to make any difference, apart from in your wallet.

Don't think I've ever said that removing my images is going to bring istock down.  That's not why I did it.  It is a fact that they have lost the 83% that they were making on my best selling images.  They can replace that but they would of had the money from the new images and my old images.  So I don't really see how they've lost nothing at all?  I'm sure some buyers can't find what they want on istock and the more images the other sites have that istock don't, the more likely that buyer will find it elsewhere.  Isn't the point of having exclusive images to attract buyers?  That's not going to work as well if the other sites have images that istock don't.  So while I don't think removing my images makes a huge difference to istock, I do think that if enough people do it, it has some effect.

I agree, that said the other day made a small list of 20 contributors (11 active at MSG, 9 outside) and that small group have uploaded close to 38k pictures in 2013, like you have said people will accept 5%

The whole summer has been really slow... and September hasn't started very well either. If my sales reflect the average contributor and the downward trend continues iStock will be out of business completely in a year or two.

Here is what I am doing (and have done) about iStock.

I stopped uploading for several months, not in protest, but because the time it takes did not bring the $ return it previously had.  Double the portfolio size, half the return.  I was also soured by the threat of a very large law suit over a copyright issue. (iStock did come through for me by the way, and they did not have to).   It did take the wind out of the sails so to speak however.

I stopped reading forums for months, both here and iStock.  Getting out of this angry, pessimistic, rumor driven loop for a while gave me a better perspective.  People really buy my photos? very cool!!!  Never in my wildest dreams.

I started taking lots of photos just for fun, no intention of uploading.  This hobby can really be fun, especially with all these L lenses and other great gear paid for with a small part of my earnings.



I do not rely on photography for my living, thus I can have a take what I can get and ignore the problems attitude.   I do however make significant money being iStock exclusive.  I realize those of you that depend on this income will have a very different outlook, and so would I.
Like most of you, I have watched with dismay as earnings have dropped, frustrating changes have taken place, communications have been slow and often opaque.  Not to mention the astronomical rise in competition, our personal market share is undermined every day.  According to projections of earnings viewed several years ago, I should be earning about $15K per month by now. 
Alas I finally tried a couple of uploads after many months off.  Poor lighting (but very good subject) for one.   The other was a highly cropped macro shot with on camera flash (interesting bug).   I never would have considered sending either in the past, both accepted within a few hours.  I guess I will continue uploading my "fun" shots, but no marathon uploading sessions.  Maybe just as a distraction while watching sports this year. 
Best wishes to all.  I may follow this topic for a week or so, then another forum sabbatical for a few months, there are lots more bugs to photograph out there.

@Raclro,,,

'Getting out of this angry, pessimistic, rumor driven loop for a while gave me a better perspective.'

Quote of the year!!! Two thumbs way up!!!

but they must lose a lot when people remove their images or only upload to their rival sites?

Why would this make any difference to IS? The number of files being uploaded daily far exceeds any removed, plus there are 10 million files ( or whatever the number is) already in the database. Why would a few thousand files, or tens of thousands, being removed, make any difference to buyers? The only person affected is the person removing the files. The buyers search for a subject, find thousands of images that are more or less relevant to their search, and buy one. They don't know yours are no longer there, assuming you have removed some, they just buy someone else's.

I agree.
And I think that even with 10% of files less, they will not lose 10% of gain.
They will not sell the removed/deleted images (of course) they will just sell other images.

Stopped uploading to iS before D-Day. Earnings are less than DT and 123RF.

^
I suspect that all non-exclusives will eventually be moved entirely to the PP sites and removed entirely from iStock itself.  Then exclusives can stop moaning about any perceived advantages that nons currently have in the Main collection in terms of cheaper pricing and best match placement anywhere in the first 10 pages.....