pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why is iStockphoto tanking?  (Read 30978 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #150 on: October 30, 2012, 15:47 »
0
I just heard, here, sighs of delight when Istock started Photo+. It is also a different (Higher) price but it looked that everybody loved it (as I've just re-read in old threadS) . Guess what's the difference is...

This is the real funny thing about indies.  They actively root for the company that pays them less for the work.  It makes no sense.  But then again there is that cheap hooker vs high priced call girl thing.  I know which one I would choose.
Not all of us. I've never liked that fact that SS sell more of my images than anywhere else. I would much rather the sellers go to DT to buy them.


« Reply #151 on: October 30, 2012, 15:49 »
0
I just heard, here, sighs of delight when Istock started Photo+. It is also a different (Higher) price but it looked that everybody loved it (as I've just re-read in old threadS) . Guess what's the difference is...

The difference, as I think you well know, is that Photo+ allowed indies to sell at the same price (for that portion of their portfolio) as exclusive "regular" files. The difference between indie regular and indie P+ is tiny. The difference between indie regular and Agency is huge. We'd cheer (and did) for small price increases and royalty increases as the agencies upped their standards - agencies want higher quality images and are willing to increase the prices. Seemed very reasonable.

You also well know that a lot of the Agency files imported to IS from Getty could not get approved if a regular iStock contributor submitted them. They're substandard and over priced.

You're convinced there's some double standard here, but I don't think that's even close to accurate.


But there's a difference and that's the substance of it. I've also seen people cheering when someone has sold something for 120 $ comission at SS. I've seen people selling for 0.35 at subs sites and selling the same at Alamy for 100 or more. That also seems accepted.
It can be said that IS is daring in its price structure, but what can't be said is that they are fooling customers. Prices are very readable, if someone think it's expensive won't buy and will look elsewhere. Customers are not fool. That's all. Vetta is expensive compared with average micro, but it's still 3x cheaper than Getty or Corbis. I would prefer old Vetta prices (from 20 to 70) to sell more, but that's what be have, and it works.
And yes, I don'tlike some of these Agency imported files, but nothing is perfect. If customers don't like them either, they won't buy them.

« Reply #152 on: October 31, 2012, 02:23 »
0
Quote
We're all being objective. We're expressing our considered reasons for Istock's steady demise. Like I said, the clue is in the title of the thread, which appears to have gone over your head.

Why not try being a bit more polite? The guy was posting a fact  based on his own experience. Just because it doesn't agree with your endlessly expressed opinion doesn't mean it's not relevant.

« Reply #153 on: October 31, 2012, 08:32 »
0
Looks like istock is still tanking. I hope I'm wrong but i think October could be even worse than September, at least for me and quite a few others judging by September sales thread.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #154 on: October 31, 2012, 08:34 »
0
Looks like istock is still tanking. I hope I'm wrong but i think October could be even worse than September, at least for me and quite a few others judging by September sales thread.
Again, are you going by the given iStock stats, or are you going by your balance at the bottom of the page and/or the GM script that shows the credit card sales that don't show on your stats?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #155 on: October 31, 2012, 09:49 »
0
For example, I've just run the script for the whole of September, where it's showing me c12% more DLs and c17% more in $$ than is shown in my stats page. Judging by a part-month I did for October, the discrepancy might be more this month.

« Reply #156 on: October 31, 2012, 10:46 »
0
I'm using the beta of StatsPlus to track actual sales (versus iStock's stats which are missing the cash sales) and I see that the IS stats are missing 15% of the money and 9% of DLs. They also say that October stats will be slightly lower than September - not good and by no means typical. My PP sales in September were 25% higher than August's though, so possibly I'll see total October stats doing well if the PP numbers hold up when we get them at the end of November.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #157 on: October 31, 2012, 11:04 »
0
IS sales reporting has always confused me.  I've been going by the dollar amount at the bottom of the home page.  Whenever I request payout, this seems to be the value that is sent to my PayPal account.  However, when I look at my portfolio, the sales recorded by image download don't always agree with the value on the home page.  Sometimes it is higher and sometimes lower (more often than not lower).  I assume this has something to do with PP, but I don't know what or how to account for it.  Where am I going wrong here?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #158 on: October 31, 2012, 11:12 »
0
IS sales reporting has always confused me.  I've been going by the dollar amount at the bottom of the home page.  Whenever I request payout, this seems to be the value that is sent to my PayPal account.  However, when I look at my portfolio, the sales recorded by image download don't always agree with the value on the home page.  Sometimes it is higher and sometimes lower (more often than not lower).  I assume this has something to do with PP, but I don't know what or how to account for it.  Where am I going wrong here?

I don't do PP, so can't speak to that, but the figures are regularly a bit out of synch. Your balance at the bottom of the page update in real time (NOT PP). Your stats figures update at any old random time when they run the scripts.
Currently, and since early Sept, cash sales (i.e. not paid for in credits) don't show on your stats page, but do add to the balance at the bottom of the page.
They seem to feel no urgency in fixing this, or the other things they broke while introducing credit card sales.

I'm trying hard not to attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence, but the longer this goes on, the harder it gets.

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #159 on: October 31, 2012, 11:17 »
0
IS sales reporting has always confused me.  I've been going by the dollar amount at the bottom of the home page.  Whenever I request payout, this seems to be the value that is sent to my PayPal account.  However, when I look at my portfolio, the sales recorded by image download don't always agree with the value on the home page.  Sometimes it is higher and sometimes lower (more often than not lower).  I assume this has something to do with PP, but I don't know what or how to account for it.  Where am I going wrong here?

I don't do PP, so can't speak to that, but the figures are regularly a bit out of synch. Your balance at the bottom of the page update in real time (NOT PP). Your stats figures update at any old random time when they run the scripts.
Currently, and since early Sept, cash sales (i.e. not paid for in credits) don't show on your stats page, but do add to the balance at the bottom of the page.
They seem to feel no urgency in fixing this, or the other things they broke while introducing credit card sales.

I'm trying hard not to attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence, but the longer this goes on, the harder it gets.

Thanks.  So long as the one number is correct and I'm not losing any money at payout, that's the most important item.  Still, it would be nice if the reporting was a bit more accurate so I could see just where these sales were coming from.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #160 on: October 31, 2012, 11:29 »
0
IS sales reporting has always confused me.  I've been going by the dollar amount at the bottom of the home page.  Whenever I request payout, this seems to be the value that is sent to my PayPal account.  However, when I look at my portfolio, the sales recorded by image download don't always agree with the value on the home page.  Sometimes it is higher and sometimes lower (more often than not lower).  I assume this has something to do with PP, but I don't know what or how to account for it.  Where am I going wrong here?

I don't do PP, so can't speak to that, but the figures are regularly a bit out of synch. Your balance at the bottom of the page update in real time (NOT PP). Your stats figures update at any old random time when they run the scripts.
Currently, and since early Sept, cash sales (i.e. not paid for in credits) don't show on your stats page, but do add to the balance at the bottom of the page.
They seem to feel no urgency in fixing this, or the other things they broke while introducing credit card sales.

I'm trying hard not to attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence, but the longer this goes on, the harder it gets.

Thanks.  So long as the one number is correct and I'm not losing any money at payout, that's the most important item.  Still, it would be nice if the reporting was a bit more accurate so I could see just where these sales were coming from.

I'm not stating that the Balance is actually 'correct'!

w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #161 on: October 31, 2012, 12:02 »
0
I understand.  Like so many things, we have to take some things on the belief that they are being forthright and truthful with us.  It's like the proverbial question of how do we know they are reporting all sales to us?  If we didn't trust them to report accurately, we probably wouldn't stick around.  They know that if they ever were actually caught being deliberately dishonest, it would likely be the end of the company.  Even the most diehard exclusive would likely bail under those circumstances, to say nothing of what buyers would do.

JoEr

« Reply #162 on: October 31, 2012, 12:12 »
0
I've had 5 downloads today so far... I usually have quite a few more than that at this time of the day. Not even my bestsellers that usually have several downloads every day has been downloaded today. It couldn't be because of that hurricane, could it??
Hope it's just coincidence... or slow download updates at iStock.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #163 on: October 31, 2012, 12:20 »
0
It couldn't be because of that hurricane, could it??
To some extent, yes.

lisafx

« Reply #164 on: October 31, 2012, 12:49 »
0
It couldn't be because of that hurricane, could it??
To some extent, yes.

It would make some sense for sales to be down for the next week or so, somewhat.  The east coast of the US, particularly NYC, are headquarters to a lot of businesses.  I expect buying stock is the last thing on people's minds in the hurricane affected areas. 

JoEr

« Reply #165 on: October 31, 2012, 12:52 »
0
I also just realized that it's Halloween today... is that a day off in the US?

« Reply #166 on: October 31, 2012, 14:33 »
0
I also just realized that it's Halloween today... is that a day off in the US?

No

RacePhoto

« Reply #167 on: October 31, 2012, 14:36 »
0
I also just realized that it's Halloween today... is that a day off in the US?


Busier than ever for some of us. Booo! and Cackle.
Yee Ha!

We have enough silly holidays and Govt. days off, don't make any suggestions, someone might take it.  ;D

Anyone else using this link to check their earnings:

http://www.istockphoto.com/user_stats.php?id=0&Offset=0&DownloadsGraphFileType=
« Last Edit: October 31, 2012, 14:40 by RacePhoto »

« Reply #168 on: October 31, 2012, 15:08 »
0
I've had 5 downloads today so far... I usually have quite a few more than that at this time of the day. Not even my bestsellers that usually have several downloads every day has been downloaded today. It couldn't be because of that hurricane, could it??
Hope it's just coincidence... or slow download updates at iStock.

Yes, towards the end of day Monday, sales volume dropped.  For me, at least.

« Reply #169 on: October 31, 2012, 15:16 »
0
Looks like istock is still tanking. I hope I'm wrong but i think October could be even worse than September, at least for me and quite a few others judging by September sales thread.
Again, are you going by the given iStock stats, or are you going by your balance at the bottom of the page and/or the GM script that shows the credit card sales that don't show on your stats?

I'm going by my balance as always, i know what my balance was this time last month and looking at it now it's a disaster. The bug with the stats page is irrelevant unless sales are not showing on my balance as well as the stats? But like i said it's not just me, I'm going by the general responses in the istock forums. Wait for more doom and gloom tomorrow for a month that is supposed to be one of the better months of the year.

MetaStocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #170 on: November 01, 2012, 13:45 »
0
This is the real funny thing about indies.  They actively root for the company that pays them less for the work.  It makes no sense.  But then again there is that cheap hooker vs high priced call girl thing.  I know which one I would choose.

Hahaha, and even more funny is you're writing this while selling on micros earning maybe 1$/download.


« Reply #171 on: November 01, 2012, 14:30 »
0
This is the real funny thing about indies.  They actively root for the company that pays them less for the work.  It makes no sense.  But then again there is that cheap hooker vs high priced call girl thing.  I know which one I would choose.

Hahaha, and even more funny is you're writing this while selling on micros earning maybe 1$/download.

Agree! and funniest of all is the fact that every single one of us have signed up of our free will, no fifth amendment, no one has twisted our arms and we all knew from the start is was a flee-market. We knew from the word go, it was pics off the peg but we accepted and signed on the dotted line.
Now years later we are complaining. Are we a stupid bunch or what? :-\ :P ;D

« Reply #172 on: November 01, 2012, 15:22 »
+1
My biggest complaints are about the changes above the dotted line that I signed that the sites have made after I signed there.

« Reply #173 on: November 01, 2012, 15:30 »
0
My biggest complaints are about the changes above the dotted line that I signed that the sites have made after I signed there.

Perhaps you should have crossed out points in the agreement that gave them the right to modify the agreement at any time, and sent it in with that change.  Of course, they would not have agreed to this, and you would have no agreement  to be upset with.  But you gave them ability to change the agreement.  You don't have to like how they changed it, but you shouldn't be surprised that they did.

« Reply #174 on: November 06, 2012, 11:16 »
0
I'm a small player, (vector only) but my istock sales were up last month. Shutterstock was down nearly 25% though.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3110 Views
Last post October 30, 2006, 10:54
by CJPhoto
4 Replies
3552 Views
Last post May 17, 2008, 03:29
by Magnum
6 Replies
4672 Views
Last post October 21, 2008, 13:50
by hali
96 Replies
27282 Views
Last post February 03, 2010, 12:53
by granitepeaker
124 Replies
22875 Views
Last post October 27, 2012, 14:11
by luissantos84

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle