MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Based on a percentage -what were your sales for Dec 2011 vs. Nov 2011

exclusive up (50%+)
2 (2.6%)
independent up (50%+)
3 (3.9%)
exclusive up (40-50%)
0 (0%)
independent up (40-50%)
0 (0%)
exclusive up (30-40%)
0 (0%)
independent up (30-40%)
0 (0%)
exclusive up (20-30%)
1 (1.3%)
independent up (20-30%)
0 (0%)
exclusive up (10-20%)
0 (0%)
exclusive up (10-20%)
3 (3.9%)
independent up (0-10%)
1 (1.3%)
exclusive down (0-10%)
4 (5.2%)
independent down (0-10%)
4 (5.2%)
exclusive down (10-20%)
4 (5.2%)
independent down (10-20%)
6 (7.8%)
exclusive down (20-30%)
6 (7.8%)
independent down (20-30%)
7 (9.1%)
exclusive down (30-40%)
2 (2.6%)
independent down (30-40%)
8 (10.4%)
exclusive down (40-50%)
3 (3.9%)
independent down (40-50%)
9 (11.7%)
exclusive down (50%+)
1 (1.3%)
independent down (50%+)
13 (16.9%)

Total Members Voted: 71

Author Topic: What really happened with IStock in December  (Read 8117 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 06, 2012, 14:09 »
0
There was a lot of discussion about best match and sales in the last month. It seems there was no clear consensus as to the true result. One argument was that people who were doing well were keeping quite. If that is true they should be able to chime in here and still stay anonymous. I know that a drop from Nov to Dec is normal. Maybe some of you that have been around for a while could chime in about what was a typical change from Nov - Dec in previous years. Just curious.

Note: Categories were changed to a more accurate representation and votes were reset to zero.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 16:12 by chromaco »


« Reply #1 on: January 06, 2012, 14:11 »
0
My category isn't up there.  Independent down 54% November to December.

« Reply #2 on: January 06, 2012, 14:14 »
0
Mine were down 100%.  ;D

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

« Reply #3 on: January 06, 2012, 14:29 »
0
Did you intend to have no "down" categories for independents?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #4 on: January 06, 2012, 14:37 »
0
Exclusive, $$ just over 10% down on Nov. Odd month, as the dls were almost as many as Nov and I had two ELs in Dec and none in Nov. Essentially, a far higher proportion of XSm and Sm. Also the last week crashed even more than usual.

That said, in previous years, my Novs outsold my Decs by c20%, dls and $$.

(My BME is still Nov 2008, by a mile- and Dec 2008 my 2nd best, even though c22% down on Nov '08 for $$)

Added: as always, the figures aren't very relevant unless we know a lot more facts, e.g. changing between indie/exclusive or staying the same, files added ...
« Last Edit: January 07, 2012, 07:32 by ShadySue »

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #5 on: January 06, 2012, 14:42 »
0
Down by 45%, Independent.

« Reply #6 on: January 06, 2012, 14:44 »
0
Independent:
20% down in Dec 2011 compared to Nov 2011
29% down in Dec 2011 compared to Dec 2010

« Reply #7 on: January 06, 2012, 14:52 »
0
Ooops. Sorry, small work crisis got me distracted in the middle of building the poll. I think its fixed now

« Reply #8 on: January 06, 2012, 14:54 »
0
Nov to Dec isn't really the best comparison since (for me, anyway) the dead 10 days at the end of December always make it worse.
However, Dec 10 vs Dec 11 is even worse than the Nov to Dec comparison.

« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2012, 15:10 »
0
iStock Dec 11 vs Nov 11 was down 40% in $$ and 35% in DLs.  Compare iStock downloads Dec 11 to Dec 10 (not fair to compare the money as I was exclusive in Dec 10) and they were down 65%

November is my strongest month and December's always down a little - 5% to 25% over the years.

« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2012, 15:16 »
0
Mine were down 100%.  ;D

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

+1

« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2012, 15:19 »
0
Mine were down 100%.  ;D

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

+1

I think you and I are the only ones that think this joke is funny. Or maybe it's just me that thinks it's funny.  :)

« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2012, 15:45 »
0
Looks like I completely missed the mark on my categories. Perhaps I should redo the poll with different numbers. In particular losses over 20%. Thoughts?

« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2012, 15:46 »
0
Mine were down 100%.  ;D

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

+1

I think you and I are the only ones that think this joke is funny. Or maybe it's just me that thinks it's funny.  :)

I think it's totally funny!

« Reply #14 on: January 06, 2012, 15:48 »
0
Looks like I completely missed the mark on my categories. Perhaps I should redo the poll with different numbers. In particular losses over 20%. Thoughts?

Yes __ start again and make it 10% steps going up to say +/- 70%.

It is ridiculous comparing Nov 10 with Dec 11 anyway. It has to be the same month each year to avoid seasonal variation.

« Reply #15 on: January 06, 2012, 15:52 »
0
I will redo the poll. The problem with comparing 2010 to 2011 is the factors like port size and huge changes over the last 12 months. What I was hoping for was to get an idea of what has happened in the last 90 days or so. Perhaps I could assume a 15% loss would be normal for December vs November?

« Reply #16 on: January 06, 2012, 16:08 »
0
Okay, I have updated the poll numbers. Thank you to all of you who had responded. I had no idea the losses in december would be so dramatic. Hopefully this is a more accurate representation. I know a loss for December is to be expected I was just wondering if they were higher than should be expected.

« Reply #17 on: January 06, 2012, 16:21 »
0
As an exclusive, I'd be interested in seeing the same poll for the other agencies. Is that something others would be interested in?

« Reply #18 on: January 06, 2012, 16:32 »
0
I think thats a good idea. Might give us a baseline of a sort to compare to. Give me ten minutes or so to make the new polls.

« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2012, 16:33 »
0
Since I only uploaded two images in 2011 and they only sold a handful of times (none last month), I can tell you December 2011 is down 40% from 2010.  Truly incredible losses.

And yes...a poll of the other agencies would be interesting.  SS, for example, was down 15% from November and up 39% from December 2010 (I didn't add many images at SS either).

« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2012, 15:57 »
0
Independent:
34% down in Dec 2011 compared to Nov 2011
75% down in Dec 2011 compared to Dec 2010

« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2012, 16:28 »
0
Independent:
29% down in Dec 2011 compared to Nov 2011
35% down in Dec 2011 compared to Dec 2010
26% down in 2011 compared to 2010

I stopped uploading after the Sep 2010 announcement and began slowly deleting my nonsellers and poor sellers.  I've gone from a little over 3000 images to just over 1000 today.

« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2012, 19:04 »
0
There was a lot of discussion about best match and sales in the last month. It seems there was no clear consensus as to the true result. One argument was that people who were doing well were keeping quite. If that is true they should be able to chime in here and still stay anonymous. I know that a drop from Nov to Dec is normal. Maybe some of you that have been around for a while could chime in about what was a typical change from Nov - Dec in previous years. Just curious.

Note: Categories were changed to a more accurate representation and votes were reset to zero.

the change makes it no more accurate, since you're still measuring % with no idea what the real numbers are

you're still missing the point - it's not nov - dec - it's EVRY pair of months;  for most people sales are not large enough to compare particular months - instead you need to use running averages - eg last 3 months vs last yrs same 3 months

.  in addition you're chasing a shifting market and changing market in a recesion

lagereek

« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2012, 02:19 »
0
All these IS, threads mushrooming. Are they really a necessity? havent we got enough?  who cares about percentages here and there,  isnt it enough that the overwhelming majority, indies or exclusives are way, way down.

In the eyes of Getty,  IS, is expendible, has always been. Pointless flogging a dead horse, isnt it.  Believe me on this one. :)

Cogent Marketing

« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2012, 02:56 »
0
All these IS, threads mushrooming. Are they really a necessity? havent we got enough?  who cares about percentages here and there,  isnt it enough that the overwhelming majority, indies or exclusives are way, way down.

In the eyes of Getty,  IS, is expendible, has always been. Pointless flogging a dead horse, isnt it.  Believe me on this one. :)
Completely agree.

ETA. Replace the word horse with donkey. ;D

CarlssonInc

« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2012, 03:19 »
0
All these IS, threads mushrooming. Are they really a necessity? havent we got enough?  who cares about percentages here and there,  isnt it enough that the overwhelming majority, indies or exclusives are way, way down.

In the eyes of Getty,  IS, is expendible, has always been. Pointless flogging a dead horse, isnt it.  Believe me on this one. :)

We keep going around in circles Christian, but I still haven't heard you explain your arguments why Getty would view a $50 million investment, now up to a turnover of roughly $300 million in a market segment that is still expanding as being expendable? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Kill iStock and the hole would be filled by SS/Dreamstime/Fotolia etc. - how would that benefit Getty? Without iStock they have nothing in the important segment between the bottom-feeder TS and their more upmarket proper RF - are you saying that they would just leave that on the table for their competitors? That is like deliberately turning their back to a whole lot of $$ - not really Getty like would it be?

lagereek

« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2012, 03:44 »
0
All these IS, threads mushrooming. Are they really a necessity? havent we got enough?  who cares about percentages here and there,  isnt it enough that the overwhelming majority, indies or exclusives are way, way down.

In the eyes of Getty,  IS, is expendible, has always been. Pointless flogging a dead horse, isnt it.  Believe me on this one. :)

We keep going around in circles Christian, but I still haven't heard you explain your arguments why Getty would view a $50 million investment, now up to a turnover of roughly $300 million in a market segment that is still expanding as being expendable? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Kill iStock and the hole would be filled by SS/Dreamstime/Fotolia etc. - how would that benefit Getty? Without iStock they have nothing in the important segment between the bottom-feeder TS and their more upmarket proper RF - are you saying that they would just leave that on the table for their competitors? That is like deliberately turning their back to a whole lot of $$ - not really Getty like would it be?

Hi Martin!

When Getty buy,  they buy to controle, to hold it at bay. Thats it. This is their track record and this is what they have done for the past 20 years or so. Seriously!  if they were really interested,  would they have enforced and turned IS,  into what it is today?  ofcourse not.
IS,  is just another trophy, to go with all the rest and in two years time, they are forgotten or lurking somewhere beneath the surface. You wait and see. Nothing is ever long-term,  just short and sharp. They can do business like that  but we?  we cant. :)

CarlssonInc

« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2012, 03:56 »
0
All these IS, threads mushrooming. Are they really a necessity? havent we got enough?  who cares about percentages here and there,  isnt it enough that the overwhelming majority, indies or exclusives are way, way down.

In the eyes of Getty,  IS, is expendible, has always been. Pointless flogging a dead horse, isnt it.  Believe me on this one. :)

We keep going around in circles Christian, but I still haven't heard you explain your arguments why Getty would view a $50 million investment, now up to a turnover of roughly $300 million in a market segment that is still expanding as being expendable? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Kill iStock and the hole would be filled by SS/Dreamstime/Fotolia etc. - how would that benefit Getty? Without iStock they have nothing in the important segment between the bottom-feeder TS and their more upmarket proper RF - are you saying that they would just leave that on the table for their competitors? That is like deliberately turning their back to a whole lot of $$ - not really Getty like would it be?

Hi Martin!

When Getty buy,  they buy to controle, to hold it at bay. Thats it. This is their track record and this is what they have done for the past 20 years or so. Seriously!  if they were really interested,  would they have enforced and turned IS,  into what it is today?  ofcourse not.
IS,  is just another trophy, to go with all the rest and in two years time, they are forgotten or lurking somewhere beneath the surface. You wait and see. Nothing is ever long-term,  just short and sharp. They can do business like that  but we?  we cant. :)

I guess time will tell, but I'm more along the line of Getty having gotten some things wrong with iStock (i.e. trying to control it too much, despite not understanding it fully), as well as things might not OVERALL be as bad as many (we) think - they don't care about individual contributors or group of contributors, only about iStock as a whole. The rough ride continues...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
4276 Views
Last post January 08, 2012, 18:59
by cascoly
4 Replies
2345 Views
Last post November 29, 2012, 20:02
by cmannphoto
62 Replies
12641 Views
Last post January 14, 2015, 05:23
by Nikovsk
2 Replies
3515 Views
Last post June 26, 2018, 10:20
by illstudio
3 Replies
2811 Views
Last post February 08, 2019, 06:36
by FrankyDM

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle