MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why is iStockphoto tanking?  (Read 38036 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #50 on: October 06, 2012, 15:02 »
0
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.


Poncke

« Reply #51 on: October 06, 2012, 15:13 »
0
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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #52 on: October 06, 2012, 17:43 »
0
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?
« Last Edit: October 07, 2012, 03:08 by ShadySue »

MetaStocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #53 on: October 07, 2012, 03:03 »
0
Istock falling down is a good news.
This agency is finally getting what it deserves.



MetaStocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #54 on: October 07, 2012, 03:09 »
0
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.


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #55 on: October 07, 2012, 03:22 »
0
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".

« Reply #56 on: October 07, 2012, 03:36 »
0
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.

« Reply #57 on: October 07, 2012, 10:19 »
+4
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. 

Poncke

« Reply #58 on: October 07, 2012, 10:37 »
0
I could not agree more with your post jsmithzz

MetaStocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #59 on: October 07, 2012, 11:04 »
0
They should raise the prices A LOT, that's the only way out.
Competition will follow.

Less sales, more money.

« Reply #60 on: October 07, 2012, 11:10 »
0
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. 

« Reply #61 on: October 07, 2012, 11:52 »
0
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.

MetaStocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #62 on: October 07, 2012, 14:43 »
0
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.


MetaStocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #63 on: October 07, 2012, 14:49 »
0
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.

« Reply #64 on: October 07, 2012, 14:51 »
+1
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.

Poncke

« Reply #65 on: October 07, 2012, 15:35 »
0
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.

MetaStocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #66 on: October 07, 2012, 15:49 »
0
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.


MetaStocker

    This user is banned.
« Reply #67 on: October 07, 2012, 15:56 »
0
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.


Poncke

« Reply #68 on: October 07, 2012, 15:56 »
0
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 and also their is something called resale price maintenance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_price_maintenance


« Reply #69 on: October 07, 2012, 16:07 »
0
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.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #70 on: October 07, 2012, 16:26 »
0
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.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #71 on: October 07, 2012, 18:05 »
0
With just 6 sales at Alamy last month, I earned twice from them than from Istock. I can't really complain about Alamy.

« Reply #72 on: October 07, 2012, 19:04 »
+1
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.


« Reply #73 on: October 07, 2012, 19:32 »
+1
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..

« Reply #74 on: October 07, 2012, 20:38 »
0
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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3720 Views
Last post October 30, 2006, 10:54
by CJPhoto
4 Replies
4084 Views
Last post May 17, 2008, 03:29
by Magnum
6 Replies
5270 Views
Last post October 21, 2008, 13:50
by hali
96 Replies
32547 Views
Last post February 03, 2010, 12:53
by granitepeaker
124 Replies
27662 Views
Last post October 27, 2012, 14:11
by luissantos84

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors