Author Topic: Why is iStockphoto tanking? (Read 38393 times)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #25 on:** October 04, 2012, 16:25 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 04, 2012, 14:52

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 04, 2012, 01:26
Unlike ClaridgeJ my non-istock sales were all OK in September. Nothing to get excited about but nothing to cause any concern, and October had started well, too, even if I don't take into account the $350 commission from Alamy

You're off Fotolia now, aren't you? If I exclude Istock and FT it was a fairly good month for me too. Unfortunately, I have a lot invested in both places, so they really skewed my stats into the gutter

Yes, I am. It was making about 5% of my total when I quit. I never did well there, anyway.

Poncke · « **Reply #26 on:** October 04, 2012, 16:43 »

Follow

heywoody · « **Reply #27 on:** October 04, 2012, 17:46 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on October 04, 2012, 07:03

...- Upload limits and stupid rejections: see my buyers experience in another thread. Where I found on a generic search term more than 100 pages of results in Depositphotos as well as in DT I found a whopping 6 (six) pages in istock. I go where I find what I need...

I have often seen the argument that buyers are frustrated having to wade through pages and pages of crap to find what they're looking for. Did you notice more tightly focused and higher quality in the six pages or similar quality but nothing like the range of choice you were looking for?

Digital66 · « **Reply #28 on:** October 04, 2012, 20:24 »

Quote from: velocicarpo on October 04, 2012, 07:03

My guesses:
- High prices and much competition
- More competition
- Display of real prices
- Bad Contributor treatment and the consequences
- Global economic downturn
- Upload limits and stupid rejections

This is sudden sharp decline in sales we are talking about. Many of us were doing really great until September 5th.
Neither prices, nor competition, nor contributors' feelings towards iStock, nor economy, have caused this crisis.

An regarding upload limits and rejection: They are necessary. Otherwise the site would be full of garbage, and also the factories would try to flood the site.

oxman · « **Reply #29 on:** October 04, 2012, 20:47 »

Quote from: Digital66 on October 04, 2012, 20:24

Quote from: velocicarpo on October 04, 2012, 07:03
My guesses:
- High prices and much competition
- More competition
- Display of real prices
- Bad Contributor treatment and the consequences
- Global economic downturn
- Upload limits and stupid rejections

This is sudden sharp decline in sales we are talking about. Many of us were doing really great until September 5th.
Neither prices, nor competition, nor contributors' feelings towards iStock, nor economy, have caused this crisis.

An regarding upload limits and rejection: They are necessary. Otherwise the site would be full of garbage, and also the factories would try to flood the site.

That is my point of this thread. Why did this happen so suddenly?

The Mighty Jungle · « **Reply #30 on:** October 04, 2012, 21:50 »

The website is soooooooooooo slow, it is UNusable.

When designers are looking for just the right photos, time is of the essence. When it takes forever to move from one page to another, designers go elsewhere.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #31 on:** October 04, 2012, 22:10 »

Quote from: heywoody on October 04, 2012, 17:46

Quote from: velocicarpo on October 04, 2012, 07:03
...- Upload limits and stupid rejections: see my buyers experience in another thread. Where I found on a generic search term more than 100 pages of results in Depositphotos as well as in DT I found a whopping 6 (six) pages in istock. I go where I find what I need...

I have often seen the argument that buyers are frustrated having to wade through pages and pages of crap to find what they're looking for. Did you notice more tightly focused and higher quality in the six pages or similar quality but nothing like the range of choice you were looking for?

I buy at average about 200 images p month from various sites. So I am a buyer too and never complained about "too many sites". Choice is good. Example: "On page 3 the text has to be upper left of the smiling girls head which holds a pen and which is approved by the client in last meeting...d4mn, cannot find a shot with enough space there, cannot wait to get another model approved by client...will cost me 20 min in Photoshop to extend..." . You get the Idea? Quality is not everything. It is virtually impossible to know what I am looking for with the next project so how could a Agency know? Focus is only a concern with print products.....

raclro · « **Reply #32 on:** October 04, 2012, 22:14 »

The forums while interesting and informative are by no means statistically significant when it comes to iStock's business. Yes many if not most of the contributors, myself included) are hurting compared to the past. It is a good place to vent for many.
iStock has however made some business blunders in my opinion which has exacerbated the problem for both us and them. All business have some problems from time to time. ( how many times has the richest company in the world been declared near death ---Apple.) Hopefully iStock will steady the ship. I still see the real problem for us contributors is as someone else mentioned, simply "supply and demand". There are tens of thousands times more files for sale on-line now than even back when I started in 2006. Not to mention many millions of free photos available now. I mean who would not complain if they could send in a decent photo of a pumpkin or oil filter taken with a point and shoot in 2002 and make thousands of dollars. I caught the tail end of that bandwagon and thought it would never end. There are several reasonably well run competitors with similar or much greater growth. Competition both in numbers and between sites is the real answer in my view. The wealth that trickles down to most contributors is being severely diluted because there are so many of us now and so many files for sale.

velocicarpo · « **Reply #33 on:** October 04, 2012, 22:17 »

Quote from: Digital66 on October 04, 2012, 20:24

Quote from: velocicarpo on October 04, 2012, 07:03
My guesses:
- High prices and much competition
- More competition
- Display of real prices
- Bad Contributor treatment and the consequences
- Global economic downturn
- Upload limits and stupid rejections

This is sudden sharp decline in sales we are talking about. Many of us were doing really great until September 5th.
Neither prices, nor competition, nor contributors' feelings towards iStock, nor economy, have caused this crisis.

An regarding upload limits and rejection: They are necessary. Otherwise the site would be full of garbage, and also the factories would try to flood the site.

You are right about the sharp decline. I didn`t pay enough attention to that and have no explanation for the suddenness. Regards to upload limits: I do not believe it helps anybody and named various arguments for that. The sites which are most healthy nowadays do not have any upload limits (SS, DP e.g.) while the ones with limits are struggling (istock, veer,...). I do not believe that any Agency can know what a Designer needs in his next project, yet I do believe in minimal technical quality and a good level of compositing

borg · « **Reply #34 on:** October 05, 2012, 02:56 »

Quote from: Reef on October 04, 2012, 08:43

Quote from: borg on October 04, 2012, 07:53
So greed is their "Trojan horse"!

and probably yours too!

Probably you are exclusive on IS, this comment shows it!

ShadySue · « **Reply #35 on:** October 05, 2012, 04:54 »

Quote from: oxman on October 04, 2012, 20:47

That is my point of this thread. Why did this happen so suddenly?

It was the temporary office cleaner's turn to suggest something that would raise more money for iStock. She suggested Cash Sales and the IT team got three days to implement it.
Unfortunately, they lost the old code and can't roll it back.
Unfotunately, they have a cast iron contact (unlike contributors, who have a vague amorphous contract that can be changed in iStock's favour on a whim, or simply ignored by iStock) that prevents them from working weekends, or even Fridays, so that when they ran out of time to fix lightboxes by the first suggested date of yesterday, it now can't be fixed until Tuesday at the earliest.
No explanation for why they tried to fix lightboxes before the even more crucial zoom feature.

Added: someone (even) more cynical than I might take Lobo's repeated insistence that RC levels will not be lowered to compensate for the current plunge in sales caused by them to be an affirmation that the whole shenanigans is just an evil iStock plot to make sure that fewer people are paid on higher percentages. I'm not sure I'd go along with that, though. I've learned a saying on here which goes something like 'Don't attritibute to malice what can be explained by incompetence'. (Or maybe it's the other way round?!)

ShadySue · « **Reply #36 on:** October 05, 2012, 05:51 »

Example of the random search error. Random because the next time I try it, it might give me the results I'd expect.
Typed in "Sacre Coeur" to the top search box. It offered me "Sacre Coeur Basilica ... Basilique du Sacre Coeur" under the search box, so I clicked on it.
And this is what I got:

This has happened,on and off, on about any 'CV phrase' I've tried since the disaster. But I'm not seeing it being reported in the bugs thread.
The buyer would need to guess that clicking 'du' off will give them 633 results, clicking off Basilique would give them 1078, and clicking off 'Sacred Heart basilica' would give 1194.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #37 on:** October 05, 2012, 08:43 »

Sorry, Sue, but has the "target" we are meant to be aiming for in 2012 been unveiled yet? I thought that the marksmen would only be told the location of the 2012 target when they were working on trying to hit the invisible 2013 target. That's one of the great things about iStock, they encourage you to improve your marksmanship/dedication by putting a hood over your head and before letting you on the firing range.

Anyway, I doubt if Lobo has a clue what he is talking about, because the "target" seems to be set by iStock deciding what percentage of the take they want and then sliding the target bands up and down until the percentage that the computer throws out matches the desired result.

If they do that again for 2012, all the quirks from downtime etc. will automatically be factored into the final target. So if there really was a massive sales slump for everyone from Sept 5 that will be taken account of.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #38 on:** October 05, 2012, 10:28 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on October 05, 2012, 08:43

Sorry, Sue, but has the "target" we are meant to be aiming for in 2012 been unveiled yet?

The 2012 targets are the same as the 2011 targets.

cobalt · « **Reply #39 on:** October 05, 2012, 10:43 »

no the new targets for 2012 are lower

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=346693&page=1

traveler1116 · « **Reply #40 on:** October 05, 2012, 10:47 »

Quote from: cobalt on October 05, 2012, 10:43

no the new targets for 2012 are lower

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=346693&page=1

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330764&page=1
They look the same to me.

cmannphoto · « **Reply #41 on:** October 05, 2012, 12:00 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on October 05, 2012, 10:47

Quote from: cobalt on October 05, 2012, 10:43
no the new targets for 2012 are lower

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=346693&page=1

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330764&page=1
They look the same to me.

Then the Revised Targets for 2011
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338873

lisafx · « **Reply #42 on:** October 05, 2012, 12:08 »

Speaking of RC targets... Considering how many sales - especially cash sales - are going unreported in our stats graphs, will we ever get RC credits for those? Or is this yet another scheme to lower our royalties?

traveler1116 · « **Reply #43 on:** October 05, 2012, 12:11 »

Quote from: cmannphoto on October 05, 2012, 12:00

Quote from: traveler1116 on October 05, 2012, 10:47
Quote from: cobalt on October 05, 2012, 10:43
no the new targets for 2012 are lower

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=346693&page=1

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330764&page=1
They look the same to me.

Then the Revised Targets for 2011
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338873

The revised credit targets were already shown in the link I gave, scroll down to the second post.

Quote from: lisafx on October 05, 2012, 12:08

Speaking of RC targets... Considering how many sales - especially cash sales - are going unreported in our stats graphs, will we ever get RC credits for those? Or is this yet another scheme to lower our royalties?

People have been saying that the RCs are being counted, the sales are just not showing in the latest downloads or graphs.

lisafx · « **Reply #44 on:** October 05, 2012, 15:55 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on October 05, 2012, 12:11

People have been saying that the RCs are being counted, the sales are just not showing in the latest downloads or graphs.

It's a relief to know that. Thanks

beau_nash · « **Reply #45 on:** October 06, 2012, 05:04 »

iStock's new motto: "The whippings will continue until morale improves".

rubyroo · « **Reply #46 on:** October 06, 2012, 05:51 »

Hahaha, that reminds me of an old Monty Python sketch....

"I sentence you to be hanged by the neck, until you cheer up!"

borg · « **Reply #47 on:** October 06, 2012, 06:40 »

Who cares for RCs...!?
16%-17% or 18%...
It does not matter...

ShadySue · « **Reply #48 on:** October 06, 2012, 06:43 »

Quote from: borg on October 06, 2012, 06:40

Who cares for RCs...!?
16%-17% or 18%...
It does not matter...

Better in your pocket than theirs.

stocker2011 · « **Reply #49 on:** October 06, 2012, 14:44 »

Time to jump this sinking ship.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Why is iStockphoto tanking? (Read 38393 times)

BaldricksTrousers

Poncke

heywoody

Digital66

oxman

The Mighty Jungle

velocicarpo

raclro

velocicarpo

borg

ShadySue

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

traveler1116

cobalt

traveler1116

cmannphoto

lisafx

traveler1116

lisafx

beau_nash

rubyroo

borg

ShadySue

stocker2011

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors