Jim,

My view is that the term 'Midstock', in the context that Getty are using it, includes Istock, Thinkstock and Photos.com. Jupiter Images is probably allocated to Premium stock.

My guessitmate at the time was that Istock probably peaked at something like $300M-$350M in 2010. It was the introduction of the RC system in Sept 2010, together with countless price increases (when they were being 'harvested' by H&F), that finally broke the dam. It's all been downhill ever since IMHO ... and rapidly too. They're now on their 3rd boss in little more than 2 years.

Before the price reduction in June the buyers of my images at Istock were paying just under $10 per download. Now that figure is down to about $4.20.

"Midstock" is the term used for a stock pricing policy that causes agencies to fail.

Whahaaay!

This thread needs a properly descriptive title.

Quote from: gostwyck on October 04, 2013, 16:45

Personally I think it is extremely feasible that the top 200 contributors were responsible for 20% of total sales ... I'm almost surprised that it's not higher.

How can you tell who the top 200 contributors are today when so much of the best quality content is from collections which were not represented even 18 months ago ?

Either way, it's feasible. But it's a guess. As is more or less everything else here. There is no data. Building a calculation out of guesses is pointless because anything multiplied by guess = an unknown. And the unknown gets bigger at every iteration.

Also - there is nothing here about strategy.

Those new collections might be significant in terms of revenue today but certainly not in terms of sales compared to the past. I think in their peak years Lise was selling north of 20K per MONTH and Yuri up to 30K.

"Getty Images is finally declaring iStock a �Midstock� brand given how high they have pushed the prices of iStock�s exclusive imagery."

Are you saying they've slapped a label on it somewhere?

Well, there is the new logo ...

Do scout tickets actually get answered and, if so, after how long? 

You've lost me there. Scout? What for? I never even considered using 'Scout' back in the days when uploading stuff to Istock might actually make you some money. Nowadays I couldn't be arsed to upload there even if they paid me to do so.

Let's face it __ Istock are dead in the water. No amount of new logos or facetweets, or whatever they're called, is going to change that.

Quote from: gostwyck on October 03, 2013, 15:50

It's actually somewhat irrelevant or at least auto-regulating to some degree.

The best-selling categories are by far the most competitive and also attract those with the most talent and the most money to spend on their shoots. As a newbie you will probably be out of your depth trying to take sales in such categories.

You need to shoot what interests you, what you have knowledge of and what you have relatively cheap access to. As Sean says you refine your work through experimentation and experience.

curiously saying "exactly" regarding experimenting got me a minus

Zapped!

It's easy. Crop one version for maximum impact at thumbnail size but also upload a wider version for more flexibility. I usually find the tight-cropped version outsells the wide one by about 3:1. The only exception is overhead shots which generally sell better wider.

Hello Tickstock,

There�s a more accurate perspective on our team subscriptions.  Our �multi-user� products are often used by small businesses who represent a few individuals.  Take the example of one small business with (3) users.  They get a discounted rate and pay less to Shutterstock if they purchase a 3-person �team� subscription than if they had (3) users purchasing (3) individual standard subscriptions. However, Shutterstock still pays out the same amount on every download.  In both our standard subscriptions and in our team subscriptions, the images are being used by a single entity.

The licenses themselves allow very similar rights, with the exception of the 500k reproduction limit.  Our competitors offer the same (or more) reproductions with their standard licenses.  Lastly, we�re offering additional legal indemnification to the customer, which is a cost carried by Shutterstock.

In terms of free images�as stated, it�s the practice of our marketing team to pay royalties for images used for marketing and promotion, even though we�re not obligated to do so.  When images are offered for free through our �Free Photo of the Week� program, we only do so with the permission of the contributor.   Customer and partner downloads generate paid licenses.   

I�ve explained our Premier products separately. We provide unwatermarked comps to trusted, high-value customers such as large ad agencies, but those comps do not include usage licenses. Unwatermarked comps are very common in the stock image industry.  When a usage license is issued, contributors receive up to $120 or more in royalties.

Best,

Scott
VP of Content

C'mon *ickstock. As an Istock exclusive, surely you can find yet another angle to waste more of Scott's time with inane questions about issues that don't actually affect you?

You know the sort of questions ... they'll be the ones you wouldn't even dream of asking on Istock's own forum regarding their much murkier and less generous TOS.

I pay attention to issues at iStock. too, this happens to be a Shutterstock thread though.  So you don't care if Shutterstock is giving away your images for free?  You don't mind that they are charging 2 or 3 times more and paying you the regular subscription royalty?  Do you really believe these questions shouldn't be answered?  You would rather not know what you are getting paid?  Fighting this hard to keep yourself ignorant is mind boggling to me.

So let's see you 'fighting this hard' against IS/Getty ... the only fight you actually have a dog in. Funny how you are so silent when it comes to them. Get off this thread and leave it to those that have an actual interest in it.

Quote from: gostwyck on October 01, 2013, 18:59

Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 17:46

Thanks for the answer.  I would think if you are charging more for letting more people use the image (along with increased reproductions which used to get the contributor an EL) the contributor would be paid more as well.

About the free images you said it is your "general practice", does that mean there are cases when images are given away without compensation for contributors?

* *insult removed* __ as an Istock's exclusive you're not even a contributor to SS! Why should Scott spend his time answering your inane, nonsensical questions forever?

*insult removed*, you're as clever as 3rd grader aren't you.  Well I guess I'll tell you again why I'm asking questions:
1.  I have thousands of images disabled on Shutterstock.
2.  I have referred friends, family, and others to submit at Shutterstock and don't pay too much attention to what's going on.
3.  I may contribute to Shutterstock again in the future.
4.  I think some people might be interested in knowing what they are getting paid, obviously you don't care but others might.

I don't know why I bother responding to you, you've shown over and over again that you are nothing but a pathetic, sad, loser.  Oh well if this is what makes you happy, carry on.

ETA: I can't believe you think it's nonsensical to ask what you are getting paid or question why Shutterstock has doubled prices and continued to pay you the same amount.

Oh sorry! I just thought, from your posts, that you were always happy to support whatever changes IS/Getty made against it's contributors without any questions at all. Strange that you need so much detail about any other agency in which you have no stake at all. Maybe it's because you know that IS/Getty would just ignore your questions and your concerns?

My September was dead even with a very disappointing August.  Not seeing a sales jump in September has never happened before in my 8 years of doing microstock. 

Continuing my trend of year on year losses, I am down 18% from September 2012.

Sorry to hear that Lisa. I guess you were more 'exposed' to Istock's demise than most of us due to your successful track-record there. A clear case of "you play ball with us ... and we'll shove the bat up your arse".

Strangely the usual seasonal factors, that we have come to assume were a 'given', have just not materialised this year. It's been pretty much flat for me.

Quote from: tickstock on October 01, 2013, 11:37

Better than last September by 10-20% depending on Getty  and Thinkstock sales.  It is a little worrying that only one image uploaded in the last year has made more than $500 though.  I'm cautiously optimistic about the final few months of the year.

Have you been reading iStock's Sept sales thread?  Better make that very cautiously optimistic.   

Hmm. I must admit the word 'optimistic' is not exactly the first one that springs to mind when it comes to Istock. There are however many other words, mostly utilising industrial language, that come to mind instead.