MicrostockGroup

Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: oxman on October 04, 2012, 00:15

Title: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: oxman on October 04, 2012, 00:15
After reading this thread at IS, I am kinda shocked with the massive SUDDEN downward shift in sales and income for 99% of the iStock community. And since IS is one of the major players, this trend must be industry wide.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=347763&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=347763&page=1)

SO what is going on? Is it IS's site issues or something else? It does  not feel like a gradual trend since September is usually the bounce-back month. Hopefully it is related to the zoom and add-to-library issues (that should be fixed) but that seems odd that those simple features would slam the sales activity.

Have any of you veterans seen anything like this? Any ideas?

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ClaridgeJ on October 04, 2012, 00:41
Nope. My guess is that the supply is outstripping the demand by miles. Too much quantity mixed with inferior quality. Its not just IS, its pretty much every single one of them.
same thing is happening in macro, they are all starving exept Getty.

I am just guessing btw.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on October 04, 2012, 00:48
I've been around iStock since fall 2004 and I've seen a number of big ups and downs in that time - some related to earlier software eff-ups and some to best match lurches and shifts. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this before though.

It's overused to talk about a perfect storm, but I think they've got a combination of site problems (and the zoom and lightbox problems are biggies, not minor annoyances) following a year of relentless price increases, a deluge of dreck (mostly - there's obviously some good stuff in there too) from Getty and too many best match tweaks trying to keep the money coming and contributors somewhat calm. Can't count out the push to promote Thinkstock - they're almost caught up with getting my portfolio there after a whole year.

Also bear in mind that people's September numbers are better than they think they are - I used the beta of Stats Plus to look at my September sales and found my DLs were 12% higher and $$ 15% higher than the IS stats showed me. It didn't make it a good September, but it did lift it up from the gutter a bit.

I suspect that after so many other hiccups over the last few years, for some buyers who put up with things the first several times may just have had enough and moved elsewhere.

A long time ago, Fotolia nearly destroyed the functioning (http://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/fotolia-v-2/) of their site when they moved to "V2.0" and it didn't work for a couple of months. I thought it might take the site under (it was still a relative newcomer) but they fixed the problems and did really well afterwards. They've undone all that good work more recently (long story), and it may be that it was easier to recover then (summer 2007) than now.

FT has recently appeared to be deliberately moving further back the images from contributors who get higher royalties - lots of complaints in MSG from emeralds whose sales dropped overnight to very much lower levels than in years past. It's certainly possible that IS might be trying to manage search results to try and sell more images on which they make the most, versus looking solely from the buyer's perspective. They'd never say if they were doing that, and there are other possible reasons for the seeming top-heavy bias in those seeing big drops at IS, but I have wondered if they were trying to do some sort of yield management on the search results.

Bottom line is I have no idea! But those are my guesses :)
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 04, 2012, 00:56
Sorry, JoAnn, are you saying that the iS stats are now wrong? Are the total earnings right? I have thought for some time that the sales total sometimes seems to increase and I can't see where the money's come from but I thought it was just me misremembering the numbers.

Edit: Ok, I see that now. I presume the actual cash is being kept right. I'm downloading StatsPlus (brilliant, iStock once again relies on outside enthusiasts to do the programming for its members). If it turns out that my earnings for September were understated by 15% then it will have been a fairly average month, a lot better than August.

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: 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 :)
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: markrhiggins on October 04, 2012, 03:21
They have less sales due to price increases and customer relations/site issues. Initially less sales were compensated by higher price per sale. Sales go down further due to PP cannibalism and price hikes. They must have worried about backlash from loyal exclusives and pushed them up in best match (independents are already as pissed off as they can get so why worry about them?). Sales fall more and then they are left with even fewer options. You can not push the exclusives files further to the front (they are already there). Customers are not getting any more cheerful. Hard one to recover from. You could not push royalties lower? For me PP outperforms IS.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ClaridgeJ on October 04, 2012, 03:32
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 :)

My IS sales during September was fairly good actually and same as you, October started well. I was more talking about the industry in general as not what it used to be. :)
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: borg on October 04, 2012, 03:56
I am trying to promote my portfolio only on contributor friendly agencies, where is better deal for me...
I hope that everyone do the same...
That can be one of reasons...
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ClaridgeJ on October 04, 2012, 04:11
I am trying to promote my portfolio only on contributor friendly agencies, where is better deal for me...
I hope that everyone do the same...
That can be one of reasons...

Only problem is, contributor friendly agencies hardly sell that much. Its easy to promise this and that and to be contributor friendly when sales are rare. Should sales escalate, well then they wont be so friendly anymore. Stick with the bad guys.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Microbius on October 04, 2012, 04:18
I see the same trend with IStock tanking.
So many reasons, and all have been discussed before.

Inconsistent, confusing and high pricing.

Bad treatment of contributors means no sane independent send customers to the site or buys there.

Terribly slow buggy site makes it practically impossible to use.

High prices mean that buyers wanting to buy from independents will often be better off buying a subs package from Thinkstock rather than buying several images at IStock prices.

Personally I hope the slide continues to the point where I can ditch them and stop eating into my SS subs sales with those crappy 25C Thinkstock sales.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: JPSDK on October 04, 2012, 04:35
I think it boils down to 2 things:

1... Not enough value for the buck. The pictures are not good enough to be so expensive. Means the demand is not high enough.
2... Bad Karma. An agency should not underestimate the effect of the words from angry customers and contributors. The whole net is full of negative posts about iS. IS is now famous for its endless greed and arrogance.


Is used to be an elite agency, with high demands and fine photos.
Now its is not anymore. Restrictions in amount of uploads and biased reviews has made the picture pool oldfashioned and not competitive.
Whereas exclusive content can be an advantage, it can also be a drawback when the exclusive content is not up to par anymore.
Add to that a extensive promotion of that content, and you have dug your own grave as an agency.

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Microbius on October 04, 2012, 04:49
....2... Bad Karma. An agency should not underestimate the effect of the words from angry customers and contributors. The whole net is full of negative posts about iS. IS is now famous for its endless greed and arrogance.....

I agree. They took on a business built on crowd sourcing and didn't really understand how much of the existing traffic was generated by good will.

A lot of people's entire image buying and selling world was IStock. That community feeling meant they had a lot of site traffic driving search ranking, word of mouth and so on. They have done everything they could to turn their fans against them, if they ever sit down to do the sums, I am sure they have lost more profit then they will gain with the commission cuts and other changes.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: sharpshot on October 04, 2012, 05:01
It looks like lots of buyers have gone to Thinkstock and lots more have gone to SS.  I haven't uploaded much in the last year, my istock earnings have tanked but my SS earnings are as good as they've ever been.

Perhaps the istock prices went so high that a lot of the buyers that came from the traditional sites have gone back to them?  Looks like Getty are selling at much lower prices than a few years ago.

I can't believe that istock has dwindled like this through complete incompetence, it looks like a deliberate strategy to move buyers to Thinkstock and Getty.  Will be interesting to see if they carry on destroying istock and make it a place that's only useful for a few exclusives.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 04, 2012, 05:13
There is no joined up vision for the way forward. Far too many knee-jerk decisions which are implemented badly - probably because the IT team are forced to get sudden decisions online the day before yesterday. Look how often Lobo says categorically that something won't be happening then within a few weeks it does. [1] Long term bugs aren't fixed.
Often when a longer-term strategy is announced, it takes months to implement, or just gets dropped (logos, E+ to Getty).
Losing trust with contributors (e.g. persuading indies to become exclusive with incentives then suddenly from nowhere introducing the RC scheme)
CR overworked so skim-read emails and when they find a keyword, hit a canned response even if irrelevant to the issue concerned (I have also had some very helpful CR responses); this applies also to buyers:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=347703&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=347703&page=1)
rudeness in the forums by Lobo (who doesn't seem to know that anyone can read the forums), including telling someome who is a contributor and a buyer that by dint of being a contributor, s/he couldn't phone CR on a buying issue. "No exceptions".
Scams agains contributors, e.g. the foreign-currency skimming thing: which, when it was pointed up, caused them to admit that they'd always be been doing it, contrary to the ASA, which was hastily rewritten without the necessary 30 days notice. Again, don't they know how this sort of thing affects certain buyers? (Granted,some buyers won't care.)
prices too high for small buyers, e.g. personal, educational or charitable buyers, who have no need for pixel perfection and will surely satisfice with CC images etc. (TS won't pick them up, as they won't have the need for a sub.)
[1] Lobo was quoted [2] as saying "As of ... September 7th we were back to normal performance and regular traffic and download patterns"
So it must just be that all those who had abmormally high dls in September and made the average, average are keeping quiet. Obviously.
[2] I missed the original post, but it was quoted in one of the long threads in the discussion forum. Either the Sept Stats or the HQ Update thread, I think.

In fact, the HQ Update OP says:
"... we are happy so far with the revenue being brought in by this new way to pay. The trends are encouraging, particularly regarding new customers. After performance stabilized, the feedback coming in to our client relations team has been really positive: existing customers are happy to have the new option and like how it functions."
Which would be a stupid thing to say  ::) if they were getting new happy customers with the cash sales, but losing more of the old regular customers because of all the breaks, bugs and glitches they haven't fixed after a month.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 04, 2012, 05:45
Plus the search is randomly totally broken, i.e. sometimes a search gives you what you'd expect, give or take the spammers, sometimes it splits a CV search term so that your results give everything but what you wanted. Even the same term on two different searches from the same browser.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 04, 2012, 05:47
Plus look at the length of the known bugs thread compared to the tiny number of fixed bugs.
33 reported bugs, some very serious. 1 fixed bug.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: JPSDK on October 04, 2012, 06:02
Plus look at the length of the known bugs thread compared to the tiny number of fixed bugs.
33 reported bugs, some very serious. 1 fixed bug.

I imagine, when they had their layoff round. They fired some of the essential IT people, those who were born there, down in the basement.
I also imagine that the whole IT base is made by chaotically growing seeds over many years on an insufficient framework.
My guess is it is impossible to fix, because its so interweaved.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 04, 2012, 06:14
Plus look at the length of the known bugs thread compared to the tiny number of fixed bugs.
33 reported bugs, some very serious. 1 fixed bug.

I imagine, when they had their layoff round. They fired some of the essential IT people, those who were born there, down in the basement.
I also imagine that the whole IT base is made by chaotically growing seeds over many years on an insufficient framework.
My guess is it is impossible to fix, because its so interweaved.

It's possible, but this pattern of introducing something new midweek which breaks essential functionality has been going for a long time. It's a pattern they seem to have no interest in getting out of.

I thought the current careers page is quite interesting:
Job Title                                              Date Posted
Business Intelligence Developer/Analyst      08/30/2012
Information Security Analyst             07/13/2012
MySQL Database Administrator              07/13/2012
Search Developer                              07/02/2012
Applications Developer                     06/01/2012
Automation Writer                              05/29/2012
Network Administrator                      05/14/2012

IOW, some of these vacancies, live as of right now, have been advertised since mid-May.
What's going on there?
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: JPSDK on October 04, 2012, 06:17
Good find.
Its pretty precise.
LOL.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Eireann on October 04, 2012, 06:32
I agree with JPSDK.
I took my IS port when they decided to cut the already measly 20% commission and I have no personal interest in IStock at the moment, but I agree with JPSDK.
Bugs are annoying and make for a difficult buying experience, but that's not all.
The collection has to have something to do with it.
They simply don't have it anymore. Prices are too high for images that can easily be found on on the other, more contributor and buyer friendly sites (or very similar).
Blind arrogance and bad karma also have an important role in IStock's decline.
I'm not feeling sorry for them because all this is their own fault.
Time to pay.

Best,
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: 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: 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...

To me, it is not that surprising at all. I was waiting for it and it had to happen some day. On the other side other Contribs are seeing dramatic downturn on other sites too (which is not my experience)

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: borg on October 04, 2012, 07:53
I am trying to promote my portfolio only on contributor friendly agencies, where is better deal for me...
I hope that everyone do the same...
That can be one of reasons...

Only problem is, contributor friendly agencies hardly sell that much. Its easy to promise this and that and to be contributor friendly when sales are rare. Should sales escalate, well then they wont be so friendly anymore. Stick with the bad guys.

That is "What if...!?" question..
I will stop to promote them also if they become greedy..

So greed is their "Trojan horse"!
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Reef on October 04, 2012, 08:43
So greed is their "Trojan horse"!

and probably yours too!  ;)
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: lisafx on October 04, 2012, 14:52
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 :(
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: pancaketom on October 04, 2012, 15:18
Maybe they have decided w/ cash sales they can keep all the money and don't have to report them to us anymore.

When they announced the RC #^&$ I stopped uploading. When they forced the move to PP I deactivated nearly 2 orders of magnitude from my port. Curiously my income only dropped about one order of magnitude most months. PP income is similar to regular sale income now though - so unless they are actually stealing SS customers that could be the source for a lot of their drop. I know they actively recruited IS buyers to thinkstock.

In any case I hope they hang on to just enough customers to keep the big exclusives from jumping ship, but otherwise I hope they die a painful death.

There are so many points in their history where they could have either done the right thing by their contributors or done a brilliant move to completely dominate the industry. So many times they have failed to do either. They are still a major force in the microstock business though and probably will continue to be so for years to come.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 04, 2012, 16:25
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Poncke on October 04, 2012, 16:43
Follow
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: heywoody on October 04, 2012, 17:46
...- 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?
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Digital66 on October 04, 2012, 20:24
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: oxman on October 04, 2012, 20:47
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?
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: The Mighty Jungle 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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: velocicarpo on October 04, 2012, 22:10
...- 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.....
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: raclro 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. 
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: velocicarpo on October 04, 2012, 22:17
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
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: borg on October 05, 2012, 02:56
So greed is their "Trojan horse"!

and probably yours too!  ;)

Probably you are exclusive on IS, this comment shows it!
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 05, 2012, 04:54
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?!)
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue 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:
(http://www.lizworld.com/SC.jpg)
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: 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? 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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: traveler1116 on October 05, 2012, 10:28
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: 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=346693&page=1)
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: traveler1116 on October 05, 2012, 10:47
no the new targets for 2012 are lower

[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=346693&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=346693&page=1[/url])

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330764&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=330764&page=1)
They look the same to me.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: cmannphoto on October 05, 2012, 12:00
no the new targets for 2012 are lower

[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=346693&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=346693&page=1[/url])

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


Then the Revised Targets for 2011
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338873 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338873)
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: traveler1116 on October 05, 2012, 12:11
no the new targets for 2012 are lower

[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=346693&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=346693&page=1[/url])

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


Then the Revised Targets for 2011
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338873[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=338873[/url])

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

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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: lisafx on October 05, 2012, 15:55

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 :)
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: beau_nash on October 06, 2012, 05:04
iStock's new motto: "The whippings will continue until morale improves".
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: rubyroo 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!"
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: borg on October 06, 2012, 06:40
Who cares for RCs...!?
16%-17% or 18%...
It does not matter...
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 06, 2012, 06:43
Who cares for RCs...!?
16%-17% or 18%...
It does not matter...
Better in your pocket than theirs.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: stocker2011 on October 06, 2012, 14:44
Time to jump this sinking ship.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 06, 2012, 15:02
Certainly no point in uploading. Pics that arrived in my port this morning are already below 400 in the best match on their main term.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Poncke on October 06, 2012, 15:13
Time to jump this sinking ship.
I am not an IS contributor, but I would think the same thing reading all these threads for the last 6 months. However, I have said this before, I think many would like to, but   they cant, or do not want to, miss out on the money they still get.

But maybe everybody should stop uploading.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 06, 2012, 17:43
Last week they said that Commitment is Scary.
This week they're saying that it's Nice to have Choices.
Maybe they're trying to tell us something?
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: MetaStocker on October 07, 2012, 03:03
Istock falling down is a good news.
This agency is finally getting what it deserves.


Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: MetaStocker on October 07, 2012, 03:09
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.....

Agree.
They refuse too many similars just to discover that clients love having a big choice of similars to find the perfect image they need.

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 07, 2012, 03:22
Istock falling down is a good news.
This agency is finally getting what it deserves.

Certainly they're doing their old trick of letting the complaining thread run on and on with broken promises of answers.
Eventually the thread will run out of momentum and they'll be able to say, as before, "Somehow, it all blew over".
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: qwerty on October 07, 2012, 03:36
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.....

Agree.
They refuse too many similars just to discover that clients love having a big choice of similars to find the perfect image they need.

I haven't had a problem with IS not accepting from the same series. DT however is another story.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: jsmithzz on October 07, 2012, 10:19
No one at HQ gives a sh*t anymore. I can imagine morale there must be at an all time low. I blame the powers that be and Getty for taking a great company and pretty much running it into the ground. I blame Bruce for selling out. If he needed to raise cash to build more infrastructure he could've done an IPO and still maintained control of the company. 

But all that's water under the bridge. As it stands, posts go unanswered, support tickets go unanswered or get answers that aren't helpful. They ignore legitimate concerns that are raised in the forums. I stopped bother posting a while ago. The best thing they can do now to revive the brand (if they even have any interest in doing so which doesn't seem likely) is to...

1) Replace whoever is in charge of IT. I worked in project management for many years and can't believe how f'd up each new "improvement" is. 
2) Replace whoever is in charge of communications. I don't even think I need to explain this one. 
3) Put someone in charge who actually gives a crap about both customers and contributor concerns. 
4) Bring prices down. So many designers I know have gone elsewhere. With the market now flooded with tons of imagery, iStock has a harder time justifying these prices. And don't tell me that exclusivity counts for something because it really doesn't. 

The only thing that will get iStock and Getty to truly listen is if contributors take their images elsewhere. By continuing to upload and maintaining a presence at iStock, you're being complacent to iStock's treatment of its contributors. We've seen that they no longer respond to the angry posts in the forums. Imagine if contributors began pulling their portfolios en mass in addition the streams of customers fleeing to competitors. Then maybe, only maybe, they might begin to listen and put competent people in charge to turn things around.  Until then, they won't give a flying f*ck about anything that any of us say in the forums. 
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Poncke on October 07, 2012, 10:37
I could not agree more with your post jsmithzz
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: MetaStocker on October 07, 2012, 11:04
They should raise the prices A LOT, that's the only way out.
Competition will follow.

Less sales, more money.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: jsmithzz on October 07, 2012, 11:10
They should raise the prices A LOT, that's the only way out.
Competition will follow.

Less sales, more money.
I couldn't disagree more. The market is FLOODED and SATURATED. People are no longer willing to pay these prices, and imagery can always be had elsewhere. Price increases will only lead to iStock's downfall.  Getty doesn't seem to have learned that lesson way back when they felt threatened by iStock. Too much supply = low prices. It's simple economics. 
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: JPSDK on October 07, 2012, 11:52
BUT... they had to raise prices, when they lowered commissions.
Else you would have felt it.

So they lovered commisions and raised prices so that we contributors did not make a revolution.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: MetaStocker on October 07, 2012, 14:43
They should raise the prices A LOT, that's the only way out.
Competition will follow.

Less sales, more money.
I couldn't disagree more. The market is FLOODED and SATURATED. People are no longer willing to pay these prices, and imagery can always be had elsewhere. Price increases will only lead to iStock's downfall.  Getty doesn't seem to have learned that lesson way back when they felt threatened by iStock. Too much supply = low prices. It's simple economics.

Oh really ?

Getty Images has +80 million images on sale.
Haven't seen many discounts on their RM collection, no matter the oversupply, and same goes for Alamy having 30+ million images.

Saturation is a problem mainly felt in microstock but this is a non-issue as buyers hardly look after 5 or 10 pages of results, anything else just doesn't exist, it's sandboxed, as in a google search giving you millions of results.

People will always buy micro as long as it's cheaper than macro or assignments, that's exactly why micro exists in the first place.
Designers unwilling to invest 10$ in a picture they need for a commercial project should better get used paying more and billing their clients more or find another job.

And good luck finding the images you need somewhere else where most of the images are not keyworded properly or randomly tagged, try for yourself, big waste of time and time is money.

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: MetaStocker on October 07, 2012, 14:49
BUT... they had to raise prices, when they lowered commissions.
Else you would have felt it.

So they lovered commisions and raised prices so that we contributors did not make a revolution.


As far as Getty/IS is concerned, contributors are dime a dozen.
They owe us nothing, and we're free to move to greener pastures if we don't like it.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: sharpshot on October 07, 2012, 14:51
They should raise the prices A LOT, that's the only way out.
Competition will follow.

Less sales, more money.
I couldn't disagree more. The market is FLOODED and SATURATED. People are no longer willing to pay these prices, and imagery can always be had elsewhere. Price increases will only lead to iStock's downfall.  Getty doesn't seem to have learned that lesson way back when they felt threatened by iStock. Too much supply = low prices. It's simple economics.

Oh really ?

Getty Images has +80 million images on sale.
Haven't seen many discounts on their RM collection, no matter the oversupply, and same goes for Alamy having 30+ million images.

Saturation is a problem mainly felt in microstock but this is a non-issue as buyers hardly look after 5 or 10 pages of results, anything else just doesn't exist, it's sandboxed, as in a google search giving you millions of results.

People will always buy micro as long as it's cheaper than macro or assignments, that's exactly why micro exists in the first place.
Designers unwilling to invest 10$ in a picture they need for a commercial project should better get used paying more and billing their clients more or find another job.

And good luck finding the images you need somewhere else where most of the images are not keyworded properly or randomly tagged, try for yourself, big waste of time and time is money.
Not correct.  Alamy have discounted like crazy and I've read that Getty have as well.  Every time istock raised prices, my downloads dropped a lot and I earn much less there now than when their prices were much lower.  Some of the other sites haven't followed them and are doing much better.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Poncke on October 07, 2012, 15:35
They should raise the prices A LOT, that's the only way out.
Competition will follow.

Less sales, more money.
I couldn't disagree more. The market is FLOODED and SATURATED. People are no longer willing to pay these prices, and imagery can always be had elsewhere. Price increases will only lead to iStock's downfall.  Getty doesn't seem to have learned that lesson way back when they felt threatened by iStock. Too much supply = low prices. It's simple economics.

Oh really ?

Getty Images has +80 million images on sale.
Haven't seen many discounts on their RM collection, no matter the oversupply, and same goes for Alamy having 30+ million images.

Saturation is a problem mainly felt in microstock but this is a non-issue as buyers hardly look after 5 or 10 pages of results, anything else just doesn't exist, it's sandboxed, as in a google search giving you millions of results.

People will always buy micro as long as it's cheaper than macro or assignments, that's exactly why micro exists in the first place.
Designers unwilling to invest 10$ in a picture they need for a commercial project should better get used paying more and billing their clients more or find another job.

And good luck finding the images you need somewhere else where most of the images are not keyworded properly or randomly tagged, try for yourself, big waste of time and time is money.
Go over to Alamy forum and check the complaints of low prices. Alamy is negotiating the sales and take any price to seal the deal. If you opt into novel scheme they can sell at any (low) price they seem fit.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: MetaStocker on October 07, 2012, 15:49
That's not the point, the cheapest image on alamy (the infamous Novel Use and UK newspapers agreements) is still from 5 to 20$, we're talking of web-sized images, mostly used online, not on paper.

My last sales on Alamy ranged from 15 to 600$ for instance, views and zooms are rising a bit, can't see any decrease in RM sales or lack of demand.

Publishers have certainly been hit hard by the actual recession, many newspapersclosed down, people buy less books, and yet if they need some specific images all they can do is paying RM prices, take it or leave it.

Why for micros it should be different ?
Micro agencies lowered the bar too low in my opinion, this urban legend that clients will run away if an image will cost them 50% more is bollocks in my opinion, it's still as cheap as 15$ rather than 10$ which is nothing for any decent designer and any decent client.

They've no alternatives apart piracy or Flickr or recycling older RF images bought in the past.

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: MetaStocker on October 07, 2012, 15:56
Not correct.  Alamy have discounted like crazy and I've read that Getty have as well.

I speak for myself, and unlike many other RM photographers i don't see it as a big issue.

Newspapers are in big sh-it nowadays, and they print and buy a LOT of images every day, i see nothing wrong if they get a special treatment, what's important for RM are the book publishers, brochures, depliants, glossy magazines, calendars, merchandising, that's where it's still paying well as they licence for long term and they often need full page and worldwide distribution, all things newspapers rarely need.

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Poncke on October 07, 2012, 15:56
Problem with raising the prices in Micro is that if one agency does it, buyers will go to the next cheap agency. All agencies need to raise their prices, but to do that they need to make price agreements which is difficult to achieve and if not done right, it could be illegal (cartel price fixing). However book publishers have done it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_Book_Price_Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_Book_Price_Agreement) and also their is something called resale price maintenance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_price_maintenance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_price_maintenance)

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: cathyslife on October 07, 2012, 16:07
snip
And good luck finding the images you need somewhere else where most of the images are not keyworded properly or randomly tagged, try for yourself, big waste of time and time is money.

I think you are exaggerating just a little. I have always found comparable images, at less cost, at other places besides istock. You are correct about the keywording, but I don't find the CV at istock to be any better. One needs to have tutorials (written by third parties) just to use the search on istock.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 07, 2012, 16:26
Go over to Alamy forum and check the complaints of low prices. Alamy is negotiating the sales and take any price to seal the deal. If you opt into novel scheme they can sell at any (low) price they seem fit.
Not just for Novel Use. From the contract:
8. Pricing and Promotion
8.1 Alamy offers Custom Pricing to some of its Customers in relation to Rights Managed Images with or without exclusivity and Royalty Free Images i.e. pricing Contracts entered into with Customers where Images are licensed for set amounts, dependent upon usage or dependent upon volumes of Images purchased. These Licence prices may vary from those of the Alamy licence calculator and you agree that your Images can be Licensed at these rates without Alamy having to consult you.

That said, I haven't had an Alamy sale (yet, hopefully never will) [RM] which netted me less than one Getty sale [Vetta - RF] did, which was $1.19. Have you ever imagined licensing any image from Getty for $5.95? I can't even see how that is possible.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: microstockphoto.co.uk on October 07, 2012, 18:05
With just 6 sales at Alamy last month, I earned twice from them than from Istock. I can't really complain about Alamy.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: markrhiggins on October 07, 2012, 19:04
Bigger question is: what can they do about it?

These things are hard to reverse.

Profit -They cut royalties but can not go much further. At zero percent royalty they would make less in six months than they 12 months ago. You can not keep cutting and contributors bleed but at a point they give up or die off. Accountants seek to increase profit by increasing profits increasing prices and decreasing costs. Generally a good way to kill the market and reduce supply. How could they fix it once done??

Exclusives got a respite from reality when the best match was changed but in a declining market share all that they were doing was giving them more of the shrinking sales. It was a one off. They are now feeling the heat. Being at the top of the search when less people are buying is not a help anymore. Now independents and exclusives are peed off.

Exclusives may have left it too late to jump ship. SS and others are getting pickier in their image reviews.Putting a big port onto to SS would not be straightforward. Many may go from lenient exclusive reviews at IS to tough reviews at SS.

PP sales make up more than IS sales for most of us so what is the point of IS??? As a way to get to dodgy poorly paying sites?? Many joined IS as a way to avoid that.

Software??? Will it ever recover?  Fraud?? Seems more of a problem there than anywhere else. Nothing is fixed. Upload limits? Less variety at higher prices with less happy contributors and buyers. I have retired from business writing and teaching but this has such value as case studies.

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: cidepix on October 07, 2012, 19:32
Personally I hope the slide continues to the point where I can ditch them and stop eating into my SS subs sales with those crappy 25C Thinkstock sales.

This part of your post pretty much sums up my feelings for them as well..
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: klsbear on October 07, 2012, 20:38
In the midst of all the tech problems they seem to have finally figured out how to tranfser images to the PP sites.  For the longest time I had only 10% of my portfolio on the PP sites and in the last few weeks the floodgates have opened.  More images showing up each day with about 50% of my portfolio showing up on PP sites now.  Maybe they've been focusing their IT department on transferring the files instead of fixing the broken features.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: MetaStocker on October 08, 2012, 00:35
Problem with raising the prices in Micro is that if one agency does it, buyers will go to the next cheap agency. All agencies need to raise their prices, but to do that they need to make price agreements which is difficult to achieve and if not done right, it could be illegal (cartel price fixing). However book publishers have done it [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_Book_Price_Agreement[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_Book_Price_Agreement[/url]) and also their is something called resale price maintenance [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_price_maintenance[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_price_maintenance[/url])


Yes, there needs to be a sort of "cartel", that's what i mean.

It would be beneficial in many other ways too, buyers must realize and accept we have huge production costs and that micros can no more guarantee to sell images in high quantity as in the past to justify such underpricing.

But i would go even further : in theory, buyers having no other alternatives could even be forced to pay minimum 50$ per image as it's still cheaper and safer than using freeware/CC/public-domain/crowdsourced stuff or assignments.

Can't see the problem, really, all they have to do is billing a few dozen $ more to their customers.
Go in any design agency and the minimum price to do even a simple depliant is hundreds of dollars, where is the issue if their images cost 10$ more ?

It's a non-issue !
And their clients also have no other alternatives as well, either they pay the new prices or they don't get the product they need, simple as that.

I can't believe in 2012 there's this endless talk about 10$ more or 10$ less, it's BS and completely out of reality especially if coming from design agencies.





Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: MetaStocker on October 08, 2012, 00:42
I think you are exaggerating just a little. I have always found comparable images, at less cost, at other places besides istock. You are correct about the keywording, but I don't find the CV at istock to be any better. One needs to have tutorials (written by third parties) just to use the search on istock.

For "somewhere else" i meant non-stock agencies, sites like Flickr, or crowdsourcing, or freeware or CC licences etc.

I don't know if at IS they're even aware of how much their Search is responsible for the loss of tons of sales.
I would not be surprised if they think to have the best Search in the market.

They may have very good programmers too, but decisions are taken by IT-illiterate executives in the end, usually due to emotive reasons rather than technical, or because they want to grab a promotion or a bonus, and finally because execs tend to think they always know better ....



Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: JPSDK on October 08, 2012, 02:16
Kartels are unhealthy, and not good for competition and free market mechanismes, ans for "huge production costs".

No, there is always a guy who does not have "huge production costs", mabe because he lives in a cheap country, or maby because he think its fun to invest in photography.
Basically microstock means that all those photogs with high production costs are put out of busines, and  thats fine, exactly because they have high costs, and such pictures get cheaper.

Thats the meaning of competition, and now its global.
We are being croudsourced at the price of a bowl of rice.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 08, 2012, 03:50
In the midst of all the tech problems they seem to have finally figured out how to tranfser images to the PP sites.  For the longest time I had only 10% of my portfolio on the PP sites and in the last few weeks the floodgates have opened.  More images showing up each day with about 50% of my portfolio showing up on PP sites now.  Maybe they've been focusing their IT department on transferring the files instead of fixing the broken features.
Sh*t, well they did say one of their priorities was to build TS, so they must have kept it as a priority.
There is no logic to their decisions or prioritising, but we are getting some sort of fuzzy message, I guess.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 08, 2012, 03:59
Peeps, really, despite what our figures, and those of almost everyone on the September Sales thread, iStock is NOT tanking:

From Lobo:

"September Sales:
Alright, so we didn't see the usual September bump this year but our results are nowhere near the double digit drops contemplated in some of the discussions here in the forums. There are some folks who are attributing the Cash Sales launch to their sales but it's not what we are seeing. What we can say without a doubt is that Cash Sales is living up to expectations, especially where winning new customers is concerned.

The critical thing is whether these customers will be retained, converting to credit customers.
...

Why in the h*ck did we launch on Tuesday?!:
This took several months to build and we didn't want to leave to much to chance. Having the full staff of Developers allowed us to deal with critical issues in a timely fashion. (sic!) For everything we see happening on the site there are a gazilligillion invisible things going on behind the scenes. We just wanted to be sure we had all the right resources on hand.

Is that ALL?!:
Yep, for now. It's Thanksgiving in Canada tomorrow so we won't see much action from HQ. I'll be working on getting some additional information together on a few things for mid-week.

After the Christmas fraud heist, I wrote to CR and suggested they might hire some people from other religions or militant atheists to work over Christmas. Why can't they hire some less than rabid flagwaving programmers who don't care if they work over Canadian holidays? Oh, wait, though. Wouldn't they have to pay them a bit more anyway? Deal killer!
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Smithore on October 08, 2012, 06:39
Things are picking up again today at Istock, just got a fresh download for 0.09$.  :P
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ClaridgeJ on October 08, 2012, 07:03
Micro is just a small part of photography and media and its importance is way, way overrated. There is a differant world outside micro but most strictly micro shooters will ofcourse never experience that side of the business.

There are still plenty of buyers who simply dont want to have anything to do with micro and prepared to pay for quality. There is still plenty of assignment, commissioned work for freelance professionals.

If people think micro stockers have high overheads, well?  they should have experienced photography in the film days with studios, darkroom machinery, large formats 4x5 or 8x10, etc. Todays digital costs is like a spit in the ocean in comparisons.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Dan on October 08, 2012, 07:17
Can't  get  into  IS  or  Alamy  even  with  stuff  that  sells  elsewhere.  I  know  each  agency  is  different  but  this  is  ridiculous.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: gostwyck on October 08, 2012, 07:28
Micro is just a small part of photography and media and its importance is way, way overrated. There is a differant world outside micro but most strictly micro shooters will ofcourse never experience that side of the business.

There are still plenty of buyers who simply dont want to have anything to do with micro and prepared to pay for quality. There is still plenty of assignment, commissioned work for freelance professionals.

If people think micro stockers have high overheads, well?  they should have experienced photography in the film days with studios, darkroom machinery, large formats 4x5 or 8x10, etc. Todays digital costs is like a spit in the ocean in comparisons.

*yawn* You sound like a broken record stuck in a groove (yes, that's another reference to an ancient technology you probably remember fondly and much prefer to today's horrid digital stuff).

What has your post got to do with 'why Istock is tanking'?
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ClaridgeJ on October 08, 2012, 08:06
Micro is just a small part of photography and media and its importance is way, way overrated. There is a differant world outside micro but most strictly micro shooters will ofcourse never experience that side of the business.

There are still plenty of buyers who simply dont want to have anything to do with micro and prepared to pay for quality. There is still plenty of assignment, commissioned work for freelance professionals.

If people think micro stockers have high overheads, well?  they should have experienced photography in the film days with studios, darkroom machinery, large formats 4x5 or 8x10, etc. Todays digital costs is like a spit in the ocean in comparisons.

*yawn* You sound like a broken record stuck in a groove (yes, that's another reference to an ancient technology you probably remember fondly and much prefer to today's horrid digital stuff).

What has your post got to do with 'why Istock is tanking'?

Yawn, sigh!! ................... I know, you like threads like this. Very entertaining and intelligent, arent they? have a lot to do with photography, havent they?

Ah yeah, have a cup of tea here, almost forgot.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: MetaStocker on October 08, 2012, 13:32

Yawn, sigh!! ................... I know, you like threads like this. Very entertaining and intelligent, arent they? have a lot to do with photography, havent they?

Ah yeah, have a cup of tea here, almost forgot.

Stock will never die, and micro is still stock, ranging from cheap to rock bottom.

Assignments and freelancers are things light years away from the average micro customer.
You're comparing apples with oranges.

I could tell you a few things about art galleries selling pure junk shot by so called artists on acid,
And their prints sell like hotcakes, just don't ask me how, to each his own market.

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: MetaStocker on October 08, 2012, 13:38
Kartels are unhealthy, and not good for competition and free market mechanismes, ans for "huge production costs".

No, there is always a guy who does not have "huge production costs", mabe because he lives in a cheap country, or maby because he think its fun to invest in photography.
Basically microstock means that all those photogs with high production costs are put out of busines, and  thats fine, exactly because they have high costs, and such pictures get cheaper.

Thats the meaning of competition, and now its global.
We are being croudsourced at the price of a bowl of rice.


It's because of lack of cartels that micro agencies cut each others throat and in 2012 it's not unusual to see 0.2$ sales.

There can't be a fair competition if nobody is enforcing the rules.
And talking about competition,would you like to see a flood of chinese and indian microstockers taking over the industry and selling images for 0.05$ ? Because that's the future.

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: JPSDK on October 08, 2012, 14:24
That is already happening. The whole concept is based on it. Call them chinese or hobbyists.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: jcpjr on October 09, 2012, 08:55
Things are picking up again today at Istock, just got a fresh download for 0.09$.  :P

I can beat that...just got an $0.08
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: lisafx on October 09, 2012, 12:21
And talking about competition,would you like to see a flood of chinese and indian microstockers taking over the industry and selling images for 0.05$ ? Because that's the future.

As a lifestyle shooter based in the US, I don't think I get much competition from China or India.  Not because they aren't shooting, or aren't good, but simply because I have "western looking" models and shoot for that market.  It is the Russians and Eastern Europeans that have been doing this for several years that are the main competition of shooters in western countries, IMO. 
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: JohnItalia on October 10, 2012, 13:59
I recently joined istockphoto by the request of a fellow photographer friend who told me istockphoto is the best.
Well I submitted my best 3 photo sellers I used on a few other sites only to get rejected by istockphoto.
Maybe their reviewers need a refresher course  :-\
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on October 10, 2012, 15:25
I recently joined istockphoto by the request of a fellow photographer friend who told me istockphoto is the best.
Well I submitted my best 3 photo sellers I used on a few other sites only to get rejected by istockphoto.
Maybe their reviewers need a refresher course  :-\

Without knowing what your 3 best sellers looked like, it's entirely possible that these were things that iStock "doesn't like" - for example, SS loves things very vivid and iStock is more likely to hand out "overfiltering" rejections. Raster illustrations - often among the best sellers elsewhere - are subject to almost 100% rejection rates at iStock. Each agency has its own criteria - rational or not - and so you can find very salable work that some agency won't take (DT and its similars policy, for example).

It's a pain, but you could post here asking for suggestions about what to submit to iStock if you're willing to give links to your portfolios elsewhere.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: dbvirago on October 10, 2012, 17:32
10/10/2012 6:26 AM MDT    XSmall   Regular   $0.09 USD

nuff said
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: pro@stockphotos on October 11, 2012, 10:51
10/10/2012 6:26 AM MDT    XSmall   Regular   $0.09 USD

nuff said

Istock does make it painful not to be exclusive.  If you don't even look at the piddly partner sales and just look at the main site, non exclusive reg file can only make 63% of an exclusive reg file.  Which means if your at 17% you are really only  at 10.7% royalties.  vs 30% or 35%.  Ouch.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: JohnItalia on October 12, 2012, 14:30
Thanks for the info jsnover,  ;) I just submitted 3 more to istockphoto and got accepted  8) My friend looked at a few photos and picked out three he said istockphoto would like and they did.
I am getting to understand most companies, except for Bigstock, they reject better than 80% when all other except better than 80%, I guess just live and learn.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on October 12, 2012, 14:55
Glad you found someone to ask - I assume the friend was an iStock contributor who has the scar tissue from his/her own rejections to know what to suggest.

These days BigStock is run by SS and seems to be following their reviewing standards fairly closely. Are you a SS contributor? If not, go for SS next and once you've figured them out, BigStock will take care of itself
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: JohnItalia on October 13, 2012, 08:23
Thanks again jsnover  ;) I heard something about Bigstock and SS being related. Yes, I am a member of SS and funny thing, the the photos SS accepted, Bigstock rejected  ??? Maybe they are looking for diversity. Oh well, I am having a blast getting back to full speed in my photography again and having fun with the uploads.  8) Have a great weekend.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Poncke on October 13, 2012, 11:28
Write a note to BS with links to the photos on SS and they will accept them. Unless the photos are really bad and then SS will delete them. But 99% of the time BS accepted the links to SS and approved the photos.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: tobybridson on October 22, 2012, 17:42
I think iStock has a serious issue. My sales have absolutely tanked from many sales a day to absolutely none. Looking at my Bit.ly analytics, the click throughs and page views have reflected this. On average my pages with the tracking links went from 500+ views per day to less than 10.

I have not changed anything, so something has gone very wrong at iStock's end.

Perhaps they have priced themselves out of the market? On the other hand maybe global financial issues are to blame. A combination of the two perhaps?

it's a worry and makes me want to try a few other stock related sites with better % on sales.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 22, 2012, 17:55
Views are almost gone, a 'feature' of the introduction of credit card sales in early September, together with the loss of the zoom feature, unreliable stats and goodness knows what else, possibly your tracking links, I couldn't possibly say.

Almost everyone is reporting a major fall in sales since the introduction of CCSales and the ensuing loss of site functionality.

In case you haven't read the iStock Help forum, there's a list of ongoing bugs as reported on 1st October, all but one still unfixed, some of these carrying over for months.
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=347769&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=347769&page=1)

They don't seem to GAD.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: stocker2011 on October 22, 2012, 21:13
You've gotta hand it to istock, in terms of pissing off their contributors at least they're consistent.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: mattdixon on October 23, 2012, 09:01
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ClaridgeJ on October 23, 2012, 09:31
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.


Might just be exactly what they want!  always a method behind the madness.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: cr8tivguy on October 23, 2012, 10:45
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!
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: lisafx on October 23, 2012, 10:53
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.


Cr8tivguy, are you istock exclusive? 
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: aeonf on October 23, 2012, 11:16
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: mattdixon on October 23, 2012, 11:31
Maybe because it doesn't reflect the last 2 months accurately.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Sadstock on October 23, 2012, 11:40
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. 



Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: aspp on October 23, 2012, 12:06
The best match shows lots of high canister exclusive content - not particularly profitable for iStock.

It may be that the best match you are seeing is not the best match which many of the customers are seeing. They may be seeing imported Getty content.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: gostwyck on October 23, 2012, 12:09
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Equus on October 23, 2012, 12:50
It may be that the best match you are seeing is not the best match which many of the customers are seeing. They may be seeing imported Getty content.

Exactly. This seems to be the only explanation for all the conflicting stories from IS and contributors. This ties it all together.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Poncke on October 23, 2012, 13:40
I would almost think cr8tivguy is wut
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 23, 2012, 13:59
I would almost think cr8tivguy is wut
Doubt it: cr8tivguy is eponymous on iStock; wut is Berc.
I see nothing in their posts here which would suggest they are the same.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: WarrenPrice on October 23, 2012, 14:32
Maybe the subject should be, "Is iStock tanking?"   ;D

Seriously, guys, this sounds like "I hope they tank so I can say, 'I told you so.' " :P
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Poncke on October 23, 2012, 14:36
I would almost think cr8tivguy is wut
Doubt it: cr8tivguy is eponymous on iStock; wut is Berc.
I see nothing in their posts here which would suggest they are the same.

Just for a minute when cr8guy was hysterically promoting one site in caps lock it sounded like wut to me. He always wanted to organise a revolution in stock as well.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: RapidEye on October 23, 2012, 16:41
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: emblem on October 23, 2012, 19:06
Yes something has seriously changed at iStock....my sales have dropped by half over the last four months with no signs of improvement. Looks like we will have to get used them turning into a middle tier site and look to other agencies for those lost sales.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on October 23, 2012, 19:15
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.

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 23, 2012, 19:18
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: WarrenPrice on October 23, 2012, 19:21
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?

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 23, 2012, 19:32
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?
It copies photos to TS, though exclusives can opt to send new photos there only.
So yes, many TS photos can be bought by TS sub, iS sub or ordinarily on IS.
IIRC, some photos are only in the TS/Photos.com (wholly owned content, content ingested from elsewhere).
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: RapidEye on October 24, 2012, 01:00
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ClaridgeJ on October 24, 2012, 01:53
Clever marketing and advertising is what drives IS customers to TS. Throughout the years Getty has always been extremely good at promoting and gearing industry/markets to themselves. You have to hand them that.

Its the faith in their marketing and strategy that still keep the old-timers with them.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: gostwyck on October 24, 2012, 02:48
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: WarrenPrice on October 24, 2012, 08:27
I'm having a hard time deciding which of our MSG participants are truly experienced at running a large business.  It would seem that several know how to fix iStock (and several other agencies).  But, if that were true, wouldn't they be getting 85% on their art work rather than seeking more and more agencies to pay them 20% and less?

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: TheDman on October 24, 2012, 09:08
I see the same trend with IStock tanking.
So many reasons, and all have been discussed before.

Inconsistent, confusing and high pricing.


To this point, a friend of mine and occasional istock buyer just emailed me asking why this image (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11240556-the-end.php?st=5c6d068) and this image (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10955290-the-end.php?st=5c6d068) cost so much more than this image (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10778694-the-end.php?st=5c6d068). How the heck do you answer that?
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: pro@stockphotos on October 24, 2012, 09:51
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 it sounds like getty is force feeding customers and contributors gettys secret sauce.  It reminds me what anheuser busch did when they bought rolling rock brewery.  They shut down the brewery with special glass stills and moved to production to a janky budwiser plant not even located in the same sate.  Yet they still sell the same branded product. 


 
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Gannet77 on October 24, 2012, 09:55
I see the same trend with IStock tanking.
So many reasons, and all have been discussed before.

Inconsistent, confusing and high pricing.


To this point, a friend of mine and occasional istock buyer just emailed me asking why this image ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11240556-the-end.php?st=5c6d068[/url]) and this image ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10955290-the-end.php?st=5c6d068[/url]) cost so much more than this image ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10778694-the-end.php?st=5c6d068[/url]). How the heck do you answer that?


What is even more mysterious, to me anyway, is that the more expensive ones appear to have outsold the cheaper one by a considerable factor. 

It is possible, I suppose, that the images were moved to Vetta only after having already sold multiple times - either that, or perhaps iStock are right when they say many of their buyers simply aren't that price conscious.  I just don't know.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on October 24, 2012, 10:18

What is even more mysterious, to me anyway, is that the more expensive ones appear to have outsold the cheaper one by a considerable factor....

Not sure what you mean. I see two Vettas and one regular. The regular and one of the Vettas say >10 for sales and one of the Vettas says 3 sales. The fact that one of the Vettas has many views is probably unrelated as they can get looked at a lot if they happen to sit in the new images top slots for a while.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Sadstock on October 24, 2012, 11:21
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 it sounds like getty is force feeding customers and contributors gettys secret sauce.  It reminds me what anheuser busch did when they bought rolling rock brewery.  They shut down the brewery with special glass stills and moved to production to a janky budwiser plant not even located in the same sate.  Yet they still sell the same branded product.

-----------------------------------

I think the other long term goal of getty is to cut the percentage they pay to contributors even more on Istock through the RC shell game. 

While my income from Istock in 2012 is on track to be similar to 2011, there has been a huge shift within that number to income from thinkstock rather than from IS.  If that trend continues, I doubt I will make enough RCs in 2013 to stay at the 17% level in 2014.  I imagine many other indies will be in the same boat. 

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: mattdixon on October 30, 2012, 07:16
Jeez, I just checked my October 2012 stats, even with a good day today and tomorrow I'm looking at a 50% in $ drop compared to October 2011. As an agent they've effectively halved the value of my portfolio!
I'm not seeing a higher spike in PP sales and my Vetta $ sales have dropped dramatically, if customers are migrating it's not to the owned Getty libraries. I can't even see any evidence of pushing more profitable lower canister work to the front. I'd love to know what is going on? Never seen anything like this in the 6+ years I've been with them.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 30, 2012, 07:20
Jeez, I just checked my October 2012 stats, even with a good day today and tomorrow I'm looking at a 50% in $ drop compared to October 2011. As an agent they've effectively halved the value of my portfolio!
Is that looking at your stats on iStock or have you checked with the Greasemonkey script which adds on your cash sales? In my case, there's a big difference (>20%), and my September wasn't as bad as I reported based only on the iStock stats.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: mattdixon on October 30, 2012, 07:58
I'm using the iStock stats. Where can I find the Grease monkey script to add the cash sales?
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Gannet77 on October 30, 2012, 08:27

What is even more mysterious, to me anyway, is that the more expensive ones appear to have outsold the cheaper one by a considerable factor....


Not sure what you mean. I see two Vettas and one regular. The regular and one of the Vettas say >10 for sales and one of the Vettas says 3 sales. The fact that one of the Vettas has many views is probably unrelated as they can get looked at a lot if they happen to sit in the new images top slots for a while.


Whoops, my mistake.  I'd done a search for similars and was looking at yet another, an E+ (this image (http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10877139-the-end.php?st=6a72d34)) that has only 2 downloads rather than the regular with >10!

I guess I hadn't had my coffee when I posted...
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on October 30, 2012, 09:45
I see the same trend with IStock tanking.
So many reasons, and all have been discussed before.

Inconsistent, confusing and high pricing.


To this point, a friend of mine and occasional istock buyer just emailed me asking why this image ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11240556-the-end.php?st=5c6d068[/url]) and this image ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10955290-the-end.php?st=5c6d068[/url]) cost so much more than this image ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10778694-the-end.php?st=5c6d068[/url]). How the heck do you answer that?


Easy.  Various images are selected by editors or contributors for whatever reasons to be in certain, differently priced collections.  If an image is too expensive for you, check the lower priced collections. 
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: heywoody on October 30, 2012, 10:18
I see the same trend with IStock tanking.
So many reasons, and all have been discussed before.

Inconsistent, confusing and high pricing.


To this point, a friend of mine and occasional istock buyer just emailed me asking why this image ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-11240556-the-end.php?st=5c6d068[/url]) and this image ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10955290-the-end.php?st=5c6d068[/url]) cost so much more than this image ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-10778694-the-end.php?st=5c6d068[/url]). How the heck do you answer that?


Easy.  Various images are selected by editors or contributors for whatever reasons to be in certain, differently priced collections.  If an image is too expensive for you, check the lower priced collections.

"whatever reasons" huh?  right up there with "that's why" as an explanation but I'm sure it's 100% accurate all the same.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on October 30, 2012, 10:40
They don't need a justification.  They just need to know that they are in differently priced collections.  I've told this to buyers who have mailed me in the past, and they accept it and/or look for a similar lower priced image.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: fritz on October 30, 2012, 10:45
I'm still doing better at IS than SS. Same port size. Hope it's gonna stay like this in the future.
Sorry for not posting negative feedback.This thread is like competition who can be more negative to IS.
Best
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: gostwyck on October 30, 2012, 11:28
I'm still doing better at IS than SS. Same port size. Hope it's gonna stay like this in the future.
Sorry for not posting negative feedback.This thread is like competition who can be more negative to IS.
Best

The clue is in the title of the thread. Why not start your own "I Love Istock Because ..." thread?
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: fritz on October 30, 2012, 11:47
I'm still doing better at IS than SS. Same port size. Hope it's gonna stay like this in the future.
Sorry for not posting negative feedback.This thread is like competition who can be more negative to IS.
Best

The clue is in the title of the thread. Why not start your own "I Love Istock Because ..." thread?
I don't. Just trying to be objective. By the way good idea just for a change.
And why don't you start your own "I Hate iStock Because ..." thread? if you really hate them.
It's the same right?
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: TheDman on October 30, 2012, 12:31
They don't need a justification.  They just need to know that they are in differently priced collections.  I've told this to buyers who have mailed me in the past, and they accept it and/or look for a similar lower priced image.

Doesn't this kill the idea then of the top-priced collections being somehow superior? I thought Vetta represented the best of the best. Using this pricing strategy, it simply represents "randomly different". Gives the impression that istock isn't trying to stratify collections based on value, they're simply trying to gouge people.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: gostwyck on October 30, 2012, 13:00
I don't. Just trying to be objective. By the way good idea just for a change.
And why don't you start your own "I Hate iStock Because ..." thread? if you really hate them.
It's the same right?

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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on October 30, 2012, 13:07
They don't need a justification.  They just need to know that they are in differently priced collections.  I've told this to buyers who have mailed me in the past, and they accept it and/or look for a similar lower priced image.

Doesn't this kill the idea then of the top-priced collections being somehow superior? I thought Vetta represented the best of the best. Using this pricing strategy, it simply represents "randomly different". Gives the impression that istock isn't trying to stratify collections based on value, they're simply trying to gouge people.

I'm not saying there isn't a point behind the editing.  Just that you don't need to get into it with a buyer.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: TheDman on October 30, 2012, 13:25
They don't need a justification.  They just need to know that they are in differently priced collections.  I've told this to buyers who have mailed me in the past, and they accept it and/or look for a similar lower priced image.

Doesn't this kill the idea then of the top-priced collections being somehow superior? I thought Vetta represented the best of the best. Using this pricing strategy, it simply represents "randomly different". Gives the impression that istock isn't trying to stratify collections based on value, they're simply trying to gouge people.

I'm not saying there isn't a point behind the editing.  Just that you don't need to get into it with a buyer.


I think the buyers do in fact need justification. They're not stupid, and they want to understand why images are priced differently than other images. If buyers think it is because of quality/usefulness/value, they're going to be ok with the pricing variation. If they think istock is merely trying to gouge people who can't find the similar versions, they're going to see istock as dishonest and be dissuaded to shop there.
Title: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on October 30, 2012, 13:51
I'm not a stock buyer, but the general dismissive attitude towards buyer complaints is something I run away from, when I have a choice, in situations where I am a buyer.

The only reason not to "get into it" with buyers us that in practice (versus how Vetta started out) there just isn't any justification for the pricing. It's the equivalent  of the parental "because I said so". Some buyers will want the image enough. Others will walk.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 30, 2012, 14:10
I'm using the iStock stats. Where can I find the Grease monkey script to add the cash sales?

Sorry, I've been out since I wrote that.
From iStock's forum (gipi23):

"Desktop users may use fantastic tool of David [user 'dcdp']

Here are the instructions:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52928923/iStock%20DL%20Stats%20Tool%20Manual.pdf (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52928923/iStock%20DL%20Stats%20Tool%20Manual.pdf)

Here is the GreaseMonkey script that extracts the data:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52928923/is_fdh.user.js (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52928923/is_fdh.user.js)

And here is the spreadsheet:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52928923/iStock%20DL%20Stats%20-%20Blank%20-%20v1.161%20%282007%29.xlsm (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52928923/iStock%20DL%20Stats%20-%20Blank%20-%20v1.161%20%282007%29.xlsm)

And yes, start with the manual, please!

PS. works with Excel 2007/2010"
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: loop on October 30, 2012, 14:14
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...
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: pro@stockphotos on October 30, 2012, 14:32
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.   
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 30, 2012, 14:41
I'm not a stock buyer, but the general dismissive attitude towards buyer complaints is something I run away from, when I have a choice, in situations where I am a buyer.

The only reason not to "get into it" with buyers us that in practice (versus how Vetta started out) there just isn't any justification for the pricing. It's the equivalent  of the parental "because I said so". Some buyers will want the image enough. Others will walk.

Just the same in real shops. I recently bought a coat in a shop which had 'broadly similar' coats in several price points between £39.99 and over £100. There were  diffences in colour and some slight differences in style, but nothing that I could see justified the difference in price (the top two prices were showerproof, but some Scotchguard will sort that). Luckily, I preferred the colour of one of the £39.99 ones  :D - honestly!
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on October 30, 2012, 15:20
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: fotografer on October 30, 2012, 15:47
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: loop on October 30, 2012, 15:49
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: john_woodcock on October 31, 2012, 02:23
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: stocker2011 on October 31, 2012, 08:32
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 31, 2012, 08:34
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?
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 31, 2012, 09:49
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on October 31, 2012, 10:46
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: w7lwi on October 31, 2012, 11:04
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?
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 31, 2012, 11:12
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: w7lwi on October 31, 2012, 11:17
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 31, 2012, 11:29
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'!
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: w7lwi on October 31, 2012, 12:02
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: JoEr on October 31, 2012, 12:12
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on October 31, 2012, 12:20
It couldn't be because of that hurricane, could it??
To some extent, yes.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: lisafx on October 31, 2012, 12:49
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. 
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: JoEr on October 31, 2012, 12:52
I also just realized that it's Halloween today... is that a day off in the US?
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on October 31, 2012, 14:33
I also just realized that it's Halloween today... is that a day off in the US?

No
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: RacePhoto on October 31, 2012, 14:36
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. (http://s5.postimage.org/9f257qc13/witch.gif) (http://postimage.org/)
Yee Ha! (http://postimage.org/)

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= (http://www.istockphoto.com/user_stats.php?id=0&Offset=0&DownloadsGraphFileType=)
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Sean Locke Photography on October 31, 2012, 15:08
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: stocker2011 on October 31, 2012, 15:16
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: MetaStocker on November 01, 2012, 13:45
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.

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ClaridgeJ on November 01, 2012, 14:30
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
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: pancaketom on November 01, 2012, 15:22
My biggest complaints are about the changes above the dotted line that I signed that the sites have made after I signed there.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: stockmarketer on November 01, 2012, 15:30
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.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: fiftyfootelvis on November 06, 2012, 11:16
I'm a small player, (vector only) but my istock sales were up last month. Shutterstock was down nearly 25% though.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: pro@stockphotos on November 06, 2012, 12:15
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.

Sorry dude,   I am averaging more than $5/dl as istock exclusive.  A dollar for a large dl was back in 2006
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Microbius on November 06, 2012, 14:50
 Istock pay some of the lowest rates when you take thinkstock into account. I'll have to double check when I've got access to to my stats, but I think as an indie I am under 1 dollar rpd on IS/TS counting both sites together as we are forced to upload as if they are one site.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: fotografer on November 06, 2012, 15:24
Istock pay some of the lowest rates when you take thinkstock into account. I'll have to double check when I've got access to to my stats, but I think as an indie I am under 1 dollar rpd on IS/TS counting both sites together as we are forced to upload as if they are one site.
I've just looked at my figures for last month and my RPD at IS/thinkstock was 64c!!!!!!!
This compares to
71c at SS
2.18$ at DT
1.21$ at FT
and I earnt considerably more  at each of these sites than I did at IS.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Microbius on November 06, 2012, 16:13
Yeah sucks pretty hard don't it. I can't believe they have managed to convince us that they pay better than the other sites. Everyone needs to run the numbers.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: loop on November 06, 2012, 17:37
Istock pay some of the lowest rates when you take thinkstock into account. I'll have to double check when I've got access to to my stats, but I think as an indie I am under 1 dollar rpd on IS/TS counting both sites together as we are forced to upload as if they are one site.
I've just looked at my figures for last month and my RPD at IS/thinkstock was 64c!!!!!!!
This compares to
71c at SS
2.18$ at DT
1.21$ at FT
and I earnt considerably more  at each of these sites than I did at IS.


Wow, I'm getting 10x that (6.5 $ per download, and that is before Getty sales). Even wirh the Exclusive factor the difference seems too big.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: lisafx on November 06, 2012, 17:53

Wow, I'm getting 10x that (6.5 $ per download, and that is before Getty sales). Even wirh the Exclusive factor the difference seems too big.

Loop, do you have your port mirrored in the PP?  If not, that would explain the difference.  Most of us independents are getting more sales on TS than IS these days.  Those .25 sales really drop the average. 

For example, my average RPD on Istock in Sept. was $1.79.  But when you factor in the PP sales, it drops to .85.

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: aeonf on November 06, 2012, 18:01
For comparison:
w/o PP: 6$ RPD
with PP: 4$ RPD

Exclusive at 35%
Photos only
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: WarrenPrice on November 06, 2012, 18:03

Wow, I'm getting 10x that (6.5 $ per download, and that is before Getty sales). Even wirh the Exclusive factor the difference seems too big.

Loop, do you have your port mirrored in the PP?  If not, that would explain the difference.  Most of us independents are getting more sales on TS than IS these days.  Those .25 sales really drop the average. 

For example, my average RPD on Istock in Sept. was $1.79.  But when you factor in the PP sales, it drops to .85.

This seems to get more and more complex.  PP must include more than just TS.  I've had some PP sales that were more than $2.  And, aren't TS subs at 28 cents vice 25 cents?

This is more of a question than an answer.  I am independent but no where near an authority on anything dealing with iS ... or microstock business in general, for that matter.

Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: loop on November 06, 2012, 18:08

Wow, I'm getting 10x that (6.5 $ per download, and that is before Getty sales). Even wirh the Exclusive factor the difference seems too big.

Loop, do you have your port mirrored in the PP?  If not, that would explain the difference.  Most of us independents are getting more sales on TS than IS these days.  Those .25 sales really drop the average. 

For example, my average RPD on Istock in Sept. was $1.79.  But when you factor in the PP sales, it drops to .85.

Just a little percentage of pics that I put there at the beggining, many of them deactivated from Istock. I don't ever look at my PP sales. Few files, as I said, and the older and worst ones, te kind of stuff I imagine can be sold fort 0.38.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: loop on November 06, 2012, 18:11

Wow, I'm getting 10x that (6.5 $ per download, and that is before Getty sales). Even wirh the Exclusive factor the difference seems too big.

Loop, do you have your port mirrored in the PP?  If not, that would explain the difference.  Most of us independents are getting more sales on TS than IS these days.  Those .25 sales really drop the average. 

For example, my average RPD on Istock in Sept. was $1.79.  But when you factor in the PP sales, it drops to .85.

Just a little percentage of pics that I put there at the beggining, many of them deactivated from Istock. I don't ever look at my PP sales. Few files, as I said, and the older and worst ones, te kind of stuff I imagine can be sold for 0.38.

Anyway, I calculated the RPD from my numbers from October. I think October PP sales aren't added yet.

El's, Agency, Vetta, E+ ans so on, must play a part in this difference.

sorry, accidentally duplicated post.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: ShadySue on November 06, 2012, 19:15
PP must include more than just TS. 
There's Photos.com; but people tend only to mention TS for whatever reason.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: lisafx on November 06, 2012, 21:11
This seems to get more and more complex.  PP must include more than just TS.  I've had some PP sales that were more than $2.  And, aren't TS subs at 28 cents vice 25 cents?


Yes, you are right on both counts Warren.  I misspoke.  I get .28 at TS, not .25. 

My stats are correct though.  Calculated them straight from my spreadsheet. 
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: Jo Ann Snover on November 06, 2012, 22:52
PP must include more than just TS. 
There's Photos.com; but people tend only to mention TS for whatever reason.

I think most of the sales are coming from ThinkStock - I don't check the details across the board, but whenever I've looked at an image's PP sales, TS outnumbers Photos.com by a factor of 10.

** Edited to add that I checked one of the early files to make it over to the PP a year ago. It's had 107 PP sales since then, 10 of which were Photos.com. **

The Image Packs - which are credit bundles or similar to SS on demand - bring higher royalties than 28 cents per.

For September 2012 (the last month I have PP numbers for) my RPD from all the IS properties is 83 cents, but from IS "proper" it's $2.04. SS was 86 cents, so roughly comparable.
Title: Re: Why is iStockphoto tanking?
Post by: xerith on November 23, 2012, 11:38
Has anyone mentioned the word "Refunds" yet? :p

(Just to bring it up again even if it was already discussed to death because it is a part of iStock which I can never understand and cannot agree with... Maybe "customers" using photos for free and then getting all their money back without being asked why MIGHT explain why the site is tanking???)