Quote from: pro@stockphotos on December 12, 2011, 21:19

Look, Yuri reported an overall sales decline with losses on Istock that were not covered by increasing "low value subscpirition sales" on SS.  You don't need to look at anyone else considering Yuri has the best statistical sample out there.  If he is down, no "big guy/gal" is up.  End of story.  

Yuri is a top professional, with huge costs (employees, studio, models, ...) and top gear producing 40+ Megapixels pictures - he can earn a lot just from selling XXL compared to smaller sizes. For us, the difference between credits and subs is less, our royalty at IS is ridiculous (17%, most probably down to 16% next year in my case) while at SS we are earning the same % as Yuri, and IS has always been just #2 or #3 (even in good times), never #1.

Between him and complete wannabe photographers there are a lot of intermediate advanced hobbystics - that's how I define myself - which can surpass or at least cover IS losses with more sales at SS.

I'm not rejoicing for the decline of IS, and I am very sorry for fellow photographers which expected most of their income from IS, it must be scary. But from a purely financial point of view, I am not sure this situation is damaging me.

I'm not saying I don't believe what Yuri is reporting - just that his case is not representative for everyone.
You are probably right that his sample is representative of many "big guy/gal"s though.

This ^ is a well thought out reply to my post.
         My point was that if IS goes down in sales as it is reported from the top selling independent artist the personal results are not good.  Another big  selling  independent on here also reports lower overall sales this year which looks like the fault of IS sales falling.  The theory was if Istock goes down and I don't have all my eggs in one basket then I am better off.  It appears that the loss of $$$$ by never going exclusive with IS is not being payed out now that IS sales are falling.  Which means the $1.50 loss suffered per download by not going with IS only is not being made up on the back end of being independent.  So far that bet is not paying off.  If istock lost all the exclusives, the only separation from the sites would be price.  How would the contributor win in that scenario?
           

Sure Aldra, you will enjoy the new sale price of  $10 for a large on your many vetta agency files.  Your commission will drop from 30%  on a large $70 Vetta to 18% on your $10 large sales but you will be surely make for it on the " low per sale prescription" site Shutterstock along with the other cheaper sites.  But you will be congratulated by the many independents on here whom never accepted exclusivity with Istock when they had market share of 70% and payed out double to exclusive. 

Quote from: sjlocke on December 10, 2011, 07:24

Quote from: cobalt on December 10, 2011, 00:03

If the system is inflexible they should have edited the collection manually. Pick the best files for Vetta...and the others will have to wait until a new system is ready. Or put them in the main collection in the meantime. Under no circumstance would I dilute the quality of the Vetta brand. That is very damaging for us all.

I'm not arguing with you.  

I know, sorry if it came across that way. The site bugs and other issues are straining my patience. I hope 2012 will be a better year. It would be nice to have just one year of focussing on work without drama. But then - it is istock...

   This is the annoying part I see.  Istock best exclusives were supposed to migrate better "agency" type shoots up to getty.  Or at least that is what was said after the sale.  The whole "quit your day job" was geared toward the wonderful opportunities on getty.   Now the microstock site is being farmed for cash like this "drawing dump" and the rubberball dude whose work is just good microstock being sold at agency prices on a microstock site.  It makes me think that getty could have never competed against istock if it had stayed owned by the founders with moves like these. 

Pro@, you are under a mathematical misconception. The 70:30 split (if correct, which it could well be) says nothing whatsoever about whether or not being independent would make more money or not. Say iStock had 10,000 photographers and 70% of the market and SS had 10 photographers and 30% of the market - then SS photographers would get 3% of the total industry spend and iS photographers would get 0.007%, making the independent 4,000 times better off.

You also ignore the fact that most serious independents were also at iSTock, so they got their slice of the 70%, anyway. OK, iStock trimmed the slice back to as little as half of what an exclusive would get, but even so the combined income of all other sites only had to match what a diamond inde was getting at iStock for everything to balance, and on average indes were reporting just under half their income came from istock.

The things that made it impossible for us to know whether we were losing out or not by remaining independent were the higher upload limits, the faster inspection and therefore better search engine position, suspicions that inspection standards were laxer for exclusives than for independents (nobody knows if that was true or not) and, more recently, the introduction of special perks such as higher prices for ordinary files and special collections, like Vetta.

It is entirely possible that you were better off being exclusive, but it is certainly not the open and shut case you think it is.

For many of us, independence was a way of guarding against disasters, such as loss of market position by iStock or simply upsetting someone and getting booted off (which has happened to people) thereby losing everything. If we lost money by steering clear of dependence on iS then that was the price of insurance.

You might also consider that the perks of exclusivity are there precisely because of the competition IS faced from emerging agencies. Dreamstime and Canstock started in June 2004 and SS in October 2004. It wasn't until December that iSTock announced that it would pay extra to people who didn't supply its rivals. So the extra benefits for exclusives only exist due to the hard work of independents who keep rival sites afloat. You should think fondly of us, we give you your extra percentage.

PS: In Jan 2005, I was silver level and 80% of my earnings came from IS and 20% from the new start-ups. I could have got a 25% increase with exclusivity, but that would just have brought things back level. In subsequent years, the growth in the percentage of income from other agencies at least kept pace with my moves up the can levels. The incentive was never pitched at a high enough level to be decisive.

I appreciate your attempt to honestly answer my question without the "name calling" another poster pursued in response.  I am fine with the theory of your answer, however, I have not seen your numbers play out in the earnings stated by independents knowing what comparable exclusives have earned with the same downloads.  If your rise on the other stock sites is comparable to your rise on istock, your portfolio would be stronger with the advantages of being exclusive.  Tell me the top Veta selling photo could make up that income on other sites.  The top independents are losing sales at istock without a large enough growth on the other sites to make up the difference.  The are too many compounding multiples at istock.  Sure some of the top exclusives have seen drops but not all.  While the top independent has felt slowing growth.   It still comes down to protecting your brand.  Whether you a stock site or cola or apple, you can't sell your product at a price based model and see growth in the future.

I agree 100%, although Im a Diamond contributor at IS,  I have to say, most buyers of micro seem to think that quantity means quality. They are staring themselves blind at massive ports, thinking its equal to quality and that exclusivity is something you earn!

To become exclusive at IS, simply means you need 500 downloads of just about anything, then buyers will see this crown appearing. Exclusivity at IS, has got nothing to do at all with top-notch images or that you have to earn your position. Its open to anybody, amateurs alike.

If you really had to earn by merit, exclusivity. Good God, 75% of all micro shots would be rejected and especially in the amateur leagues of IS. I am sure! buyers dont understand that images are accepted, as long as images are technically sound. Creativity, conceptuals, etc, is NOT criterias for acceptance.

Buyers want to see tough and rigorous editing? go visit SS, as an example.

Right, sorry, but even "the top microstock sales person in the world, heck maybe even universe" has stated istock has the hardest submission standards.  Which makes sense to someone who has submitted to them.  It seems like you are always bringing up the term "micro" which is weird.  I guess you are macro?  It seems as though you should be mopping up the floor with the lightweights at istock since your portfolio is jammed pack with "creativity, conceptuals, etc."   It appears there are 450 amateurs above you in sales.   Do you not want more money?  Do you not like cash?  Why do you even bother dipping below the clouds to spend time with the lowly "micros" as you always point out?

Thanks very much for posting this.  Really summarizes the situation perfectly. 

We contributors can hypothesize until we are blue in the face, but nothing makes the point as succinctly as an actual volume buyer willing to share their experience. 

Really, I would jump through hoops and deal with all sorts of inconveniences if it meant saving a lot of money of for the exact same image form the exact same artist.  I am sure I would get used to dealing with a little "less than optimal supplier" if the image is the same.  Who cares about which discounter I have to go to.   I have no advantage to buying at a higher price. 

The point is "the #1 microstock guy in the world, heck maybe even the universe" is seeing a slip in sales.  I don't care about the other sites since my wagon is hitched to istock.  But if you look at every other site on the list to the right over there, you see the same independents dominating the best match on all sites.  Istock by allowing too many indies at the top of their best match seems to have to taken short term gain and now is experiencing long term pain.

 What I would not do as a buyer is buy any independent work from istock.   The same exact photos is way cheaper on the other sites that compete only on price.   Maybe the buyers are figuring this out.  So your dipping sales at istock is costing you $$$ too.  What else are they competing on if every indie is on there site with the same work.    If a can get the dutch candy bar for $.35 at X why would I pay $2.50 at Y if they are the same and they are. 

That's pathetic, its good I can keep my images out of that collection.   

It was a pretty disappointing October for me. Overall I was up 7% on last month and 6% on last year.  3 out of 4 top sites all posted losses.  Fortunately the day was spectacularly saved by a big BME at Shutterstock!  Funny thing is when I added up my % losses from IS, SS, and DT, over the past year, they totaled the exact % SS was up (51%).

Istock continues to sink into the void.  Sales more pathetic each month, and sank to levels not seen since April of 2006!!  

FT actually rebounded a bit, showing a 10% gain over last month, but is still well down on last year.

Below is the market share of each of the sites for me, along with the % gain or loss from October 2010.

ISP   30%  (-23%)
SS   28%  (+51%)
DT   13%  (-9%)
Fot   15%  (-19%)
BigStock   4%  

   This is what I do not understand.  Your numbers say even today a majority of your $$ comes from IS.  How did you do the math not to be exclusive with istock especially in 2005 did they not have 70% market share.   With the bad best match placement, loss of commissions of 20%, and the loss of $$ from the higher collections I just wonder how much independents have lost by not putting all your eggs in one basket.

"Youre forgetting,  when IS merged with Getty,  IS, also had to shoulder all the Getty debts, loans, the entire financial downslope,  thats what you are paying for "

            You are forgetting Getty sold itself to an investment group for way too much.  Hence the investment group trying to squeeze out money from IS contributors. 

When Kelly left his position he mentioned many stats, however sales figures and market share numbers were left out of the post.  Two years ago he gave specifics on numbers.  Why the change?  Istock had a 70% market share before Getty.  Now, I am not sure its above 50%. 

Really!  More surveys?  Brilliant considering Getty knows how they have run of buyers seemingly on purpose with the last three years of changes.  With the sales declines and bad changes since the Getty takeover, surveys are insulting.   Before Getty no surveys only huge growth, now no growth and many surveys.