Yuri was using an estimate but I am sure his was more accurate than just assuming everyone takes out the cheapest subs package and downloads like crazy.  That isn't happening, if it was, we would see the same amount of downloads on weekends and holidays.  I think all the big subs sites are making a good profit and some of them probably give us a worse percentage of the profits than the PPD sites.

Here's the thread in which Yuri offered his 'working out' __ interesting you too were highly sceptical of his figures at the time!

http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/considering-closing-account-in-2008/50/

You might note that a major error in his figures (a factor of 3x) was pointed out by travellinglight, a point that Yuri later conceded.

Personally I'd have more faith in what Jon Oringer wrote than Yuri's unnamed 'back end source'. It doesn't make much sense to talk of an 'average of 15-30%' anyway.

If average subscription downloads were significantly below 30% then they would simply make no sense __ you'd be much better off buying a credit package at DT, FT, etc and those could be budgeted for just as easily for a company that wanted to limit outgoings.

It seems that we get paid roughly 35% commission on PPD and EL's too at SS which again is in line with Jon's original statement too.

From the figures Jon Oringer gave out when SS had been going a few months it seems that the average subscriber downloads about 30-40% of their entitlement. It that were the case at JIU/Photos then we'd be getting average royalties in the region of 7-9c.

Big companies buy subs packages because they want to know their budget for images each month.  They have no interest in downloading their full quota or even half their full quota.  That is why photos.com is a sustainable business model.  Do you seriously think the new owners would keep the site going if it wasn't?  They are an investment company renowned for buying companies at a low price, turning them round and selling for a decent profit.  They would get rid of this quick if it wasn't making them money.

So why are they now wanting to take all the risk out of it by paying IS contributors according to the download numbers __ which might be as little as one tenth what we are currently receiving?

Also, as an investment house they are likely to have very deep pockets. They could probably afford to lose money in the short term if it damaged/reduced the competition and they gained market share in the long term

I am extremely concerned about the ongoing developments at StockXpert/Photo.com/JUI and I wonder whether it is finally becoming time to pull my portfolio there. If they ever remove the opt-out for subscriptions at JIU/Photos.com then I will definitely be removing my portfolio.

My main points of concern are as follows;

1) Falling revenue. Over the last few months they have slipped from generating around 9% (and growing) of my total revenue to just over 5% (and falling).

2) Photos.com Plus/Jupiter Images Unlimited. In my view the aggressive marketing at these agencies represent the most serious threat to microstockers' income we have ever faced. Subscriptions at both of these sites, especially annual packages, undercut all the other agencies we enjoy supporting. I'm increasingly of the mind that we should not be supporting these two agencies at all.

3) Unsustainable. The cheapest subscription packages are almost certainly losing JIU/Photo.com money at the current payout of 30c. They might be happy to fund a loss-leader initially but eventually something will have to change. Either they're going to have to increase prices or reduce our royalties. Judging by the 3c royalties being offered to IS exclusives I think we know which is the more likely.

4) Contributors not credited their work at Photos.com/JIU. I absolutely hate this __ it is as if we don't matter. I know they've said they're trying to do something about this but it is has been many months now and I don't think they really intend to put the resources in to achieve it.

5) XXL Sizes for 30c. I hate this too. I know that they have said that they might restrict this ... but at the cost of losing our opt-out.

6) Developments at IS. It is almost beyond my comprehension that they are seriously proposing grabbing exclusive images (they already have most of the non-exclusive images) and paying as little as 3c a pop. It is however a major red-light to the future if we continue to support JIU/Photos.com.

7) Unrecorded/acknowledged sales at JIU/Photos.com. This fiasco was particularly disturbing and we only realised what was happening when sales completely stopped and we were able to compare notes. I've got precious little confidence that the system is working properly and anyway we have no way of checking it (other than buying a subscription).

I feel that we microstockers are effectively being sleepwalked over the edge of a cliff here and I suspect that many, possibly most, are unaware just how serious this situation is.

Actually this exercise has been quite cathartic for me. Having detailed my concerns I now realise that I have little choice but to act and opt out of subs at StockXpert. It might cost me a few % of income but I will sleep better.

The developments at IS, whilst still ongoing, make it obvious to me that we must vote with our portfolios and only support those agencies that genuinely offer us a future.

There is a real danger that JIU/Photos.com will damage the sustainability of other fairer agencies (if they haven't already) or the other agencies will have to act likewise in order to compete. Either way we stand to lose __ big time.

Recently, there are simply too many XS and S sales. These numbers do not tally up against the other sites that report the size downloaded where small sizes are in the minority. Are Fotolia's buyers totally different to other microstock site buyers (I think not).
I believe that Fotolia (given their track record in the past) are mis-reporting the sales. In other words, customer downloads large, sale shows as XS or S.

That's an extraordinary accusation to make on a public forum. I've had a quick scan down my last 100 sales and I have plenty of L, XL and XXL sales. I also had 4 EL's on the trot too, 2 at 100 credits, one at 90 and another at 50.

Personally I see little evidence for this but it would have been easy enough to check your concerns by simply buying a file or two of someone you know.

At the risk of repeating myself, I ask again about buyers.  Who is your market?  what to they want?  What can you offer that is better than what they have?  I'm not being negative; I'm being realistic.  Isn't demographics an essential part of any business plan?

We keep talking about being fair to photographers.  Do you think the buyers want to be fair to you? 

Well, rather obviously, the market and the buyers are precisely the same as we are all selling into now. It's a fair assumption that what they want is what they are currently buying isn't it? As as been stated several times before we can certainly offer cheaper prices by cutting out the middleman.

Btw, this marketplace is called 'the internet' so demographics hardly comes into it. We don't need to know where they live, how old they are and what coffee they drink. By means of things called 'search engines' they will find you.

You are being extremely negative IMHO as all you do is highlight 'problems' that don't actually exist. There are challenges with this as several others have pointed out __ huge, huge hurdles __ and if you've got any suggestions how these might be overcome then I'm sure we'd be all ears.

actually it was one of my ex students who told me about it. at the u, he did a thesis on the porn industry and how individual girls (most ex showgirls, ladies of the nights,etc..) would be running their business. all without the help of their pimps or agents. when he mentioned this to the class, they all laughed at him.
by the time he finished his presentation, no one was laughing.

Believe me, none of these girls who started out in the advent of www was making 25 cents per download. and today some of them are truly enterprises with their own fashion shop, merchandising stores,etc...
It isn't a dirty thing, it's real effective marketing and a true community in the sense of the business world. A model to emulate? I should think so.

You may have hit upon a possible solution there. I was thinking down the line of Wikipedia being self administrating and staffed by volunteers, etc. If every contributor effectively had their own site, set their own prices and was self-editing ...

You only perceive "quickly" because you've been in a few months.  We've already risen from the bottom.  iStockphoto used to be free, after all.

Exactly. Yet already IS have sales of something like $150M pa of which only about $50M will be paid out to contributors. Potentially there is a huge amount of business out there.

I think caring about contributors and running a profitable business has proven to be iStock's differentiator. Getty knows this, or they would have dismantled the iStock culture four years ago.

No, because the situation has changed dramatically relatively recently;

http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/25/getty-hellman-friedman-update-equity-cx_md_0226-markets33.html

Not only was Getty bought out last year but Getty have very recently acquired JI __ and almost immediately now we have a major change which does not appear to be in the contributors' best interests (at least that's what 80% of them who responded to the survey concluded)

iStock is run by a very smart group of people, and I believe they truly care about contributors for the most part. we'll see.

IS might be administered by nice people who care about the contributors but ... they are just employees, not owners.

IS is a relatively small part of Getty who themselves are owned by an investment house. It's the owners who really call the shots.

... But the truth is, Alamy is no salvation.

You're not kidding. The last financials I read (2008) had Alamy generating about $11M pa from 9.5M images. That's just over $1 per image/year.

Currently IS has about 4.7M images and, judging by the stat's on multimedia.com, are generating something like $150M per annum (although that figure is consistently rising), which equates about $32 per/image year.

Even when you take into account IS's pittiful commission rates your portfolio is far more likely to generate more income on IS than at Alamy. Oh __ and the equation is swinging ever more towards IS and against Alamy and the like. Trad RF is basically dead in the water.

Actually, truthfully it's mostly 'hard work' for several years __ at at least for 95% of us anyway.

You can have all the good ideas, skills, etc, etc but the hardest thing is motivating yourself to apply them ... again and again and again ... and learn some more whilst you're doing it ... and then do it again. It's really not that easy.