My sales have dropped off a cliff, my port is 3000 photo's. Several exclusive artist I know with larger portfolios are also reporting the same huge income drop. Why is a mystery?
The best match shows lots of high canister exclusive content - not particularly profitable for iStock. I can only guess migrating customers. If it carries on like this it will force un-exclusivity for a lot of us very soon as the portfolios at iStock become worthless.

I've never seen a company run so poorly. They don't answer any questions from the contributors, they keep everyone in the dark. The Forums are full of dissatisfied contributors, me being one of them.
This Post is why IStock is Tanking.... Mostly because the way they treat their customers and contributors.
I'm looking for the exits, and seeing greener pastures as I look elsewhere. I will be making a move from them.
Also Getty is the main culprit, they have a long history of destroying what ever they touch. They just sold so hopefully the new owners will get a clue and turn it around.

The best thing we can do, is leave all the Agencies and represent ourselves on our own websites making 100% of our hard earned money. The technology is around the corner, so get ready to get your ducks in a row, and jump ship, and tell all the agencies where to shove it!

If they are doing so bad as some people claim, how come the graph on the "polls" section on this site shows they IS's performance is trending more or less as SS's and even better then the other agencies ?
This doesn't make much sense.

If they are doing so bad as some people claim, how come the graph on the "polls" section on this site shows they IS's performance is trending more or less as SS's and even better then the other agencies ?
This doesn't make much sense.

--------------------------------
While there are some similarities in the two graphs there are also significant differences.  I don't know what the units are on the left side of the graph but in March it looks like IS is at roughly 60 and SS is at roughly 85, a difference of about 25 units.  However the September graph shows IS at about 65 and SS at maybe 115, a difference of about 50 units.  100% more units of difference (whatever that means in dollar value) is significant. 

If they are doing so bad as some people claim, how come the graph on the "polls" section on this site shows they IS's performance is trending more or less as SS's and even better then the other agencies ?
This doesn't make much sense.

Quite right. Don't take any notice of those silly graphs. In reality iStock are doing very well. HQ have told us that they are "meeting their expectations" and everything is great. Exclusives should just sit tight and listen to iStockHQ and not worry their heads about nonsense data from independent sources.

I would almost think cr8tivguy is wut

Maybe the subject should be, "Is iStock tanking?"   

Seriously, guys, this sounds like "I hope they tank so I can say, 'I told you so.' "

I'm not usually given to panic or schadenfreude when it comes to iStock.

But sales are down uncomfortably from where they ought to be at this time of year -- between 20% and 35% depending on your level of optimism about how Sept and Oct should have improved after the summer.

At any rate, it's a sudden and precipitous drop, with no particular sign of a turnaround. It's the first iStock moment in six years that's scared me sh!tless. Considering I have 12,000 images and 200,000 sales, I've got used to smooth stats with no nasty surprises. But this is a bitter pill to which it seems no one is immune.

Let's hope it isn't the herald of the zombie apocalypse.

But if it is the start of the zombie apocalypse, do zombies need XXXL photos? If we can sell aliens images, I'd be fine with an alien invasion

You have nerves of steel - I see you have just under 5K of your images at Thinkstock. I'm hoping to see the September numbers from the parter program soon as I want to see how much has shifted there from IS given the main site was effed up for much of September. One of my many musings about what on earth Getty/Carlyle are up to is that they're trying to drive traffic to Getty and Thinkstock.

Quote from: jsnover on October 23, 2012, 19:15

One of my many musings about what on earth Getty/Carlyle are up to is that they're trying to drive traffic to Getty and Thinkstock.

Growing TS was one of their stated aims, but why drive iStock traffic to TS beats me.

This may have been answered but I'm still not sure:
Does iStock MOVE images to Thinkstock or COPY images to Thinkstock?
Or, does TS sell by subscription only while images are still available on iS for the higher price?

One of my many musings about what on earth Getty/Carlyle are up to is that they're trying to drive traffic to Getty and Thinkstock.

Yes, what on earth indeed? One wild thought I've had is that perhaps a Thinkstock subscription is worth more to Getty than we think. Perhaps the average TS subscriber spends as much per year as the average buyer of iStock credits does, while the cost of payouts to suppliers is very much smaller, especially considering that most subscriptions must be far from fully utilised.

Another musing of mine is that perhaps it's just retrograde old-school thinking at Getty. Getty managers must have loathed iStock for the six years it was the upstart eating away at their high-value sales. So now, rather than rejoice at having bought the top brand in stock imagery, they prefer to use iStock's traffic as a means of driving sales back to Getty (sigh of relief) and also down to a bargain-basement subscription site that their MBAs have somehow convinced themselves is the future of microstock.

I can imagine some suit standing up in front of a whiteboard to explain that the Getty group needed to achieve more clear-cut market segmentation, what with Getty RF being all muddied together with iStockphoto.

Alternatively, and just as (im)plausibly, the long-term plan is to merge Getty RF and iStockphoto under the Getty brand. So we will see more Getty images moving to iStock and iStock images moving to Getty (technology failures aside). Getty RF then becomes the midstock marketplace while Getty RM continues at the top end and Thinkstock mops up the cheap-n-cheerful market.

In fact, the price convergence between Getty RF (falling) and iStockphoto's upper tiers (rising) could well have been designed to facilitate just such a repositioning.

Yes, what on earth indeed? One wild thought I've had is that perhaps a Thinkstock subscription is worth more to Getty than we think. Perhaps the average TS subscriber spends as much per year as the average buyer of iStock credits does, while the cost of payouts to suppliers is very much smaller, especially considering that most subscriptions must be far from fully utilised.

Another musing of mine is that perhaps it's just retrograde old-school thinking at Getty. Getty managers must have loathed iStock for the six years it was the upstart eating away at their high-value sales. So now, rather than rejoice at having bought the top brand in stock imagery, they prefer to use iStock's traffic as a means of driving sales back to Getty (sigh of relief) and also down to a bargain-basement subscription site that their MBAs have somehow convinced themselves is the future of microstock.

I can imagine some suit standing up in front of a whiteboard to explain that the Getty group needed to achieve more clear-cut market segmentation, what with Getty RF being all muddied together with iStockphoto.

Alternatively, and just as (im)plausibly, the long-term plan is to merge Getty RF and iStockphoto under the Getty brand. So we will see more Getty images moving to iStock and iStock images moving to Getty (technology failures aside). Getty RF then becomes the midstock marketplace while Getty RM continues at the top end and Thinkstock mops up the cheap-n-cheerful market.

In fact, the price convergence between Getty RF (falling) and iStockphoto's upper tiers (rising) could well have been designed to facilitate just such a repositioning.

Hmmm. Quite plausible.