Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on April 23, 2015, 01:40
If iStock's exclusive content were really better than what's out there at other agencies, having exclusive content might matter. Unfortunately for them, they backed up the Getty dump truck and loaded the site with masses of bog standard images priced as if they were gems. Some of the Getty rubbish might sell OK if it were priced lower, but it completely undermined the appeal of exclusive content, IMO

Once upon a time things were different, and there are some talented iStock exclusives - real exclusives not the Getty factories - who got undermined by the private equity owners who I'm guessing directed this strategy of unloading anything and everything on iStock.

I know we've harped on the lemon and lime slices that are underexposed with a black border, but when you shove that high priced dreck in front of buyers as the reason they should shop with you versus the competition, you won't be taken seriously.

PRICED AS IF THEY WERE GEMS? At about 2 dollars the sub download, any size?? I see that some people has internalized the fact that stock photos shouldn't cost more than the 0.30 that SS clients pay. Great. Well, not great: rather sad. Let's talk about Stockholm syndrome. Let's talk about slaves.

On the other hand, the point about exclusive content is the fact that it can't be found elsewhere. Period. There's a lot of great exclusive content, and also no-so-great exclusive content (the same applies for non-ex), but that's not the point. As an example: I know of an hotels searching page that have hotels that doesn't appear in almost all the others (booking, etc). I use the others often, but I never forget to look at the  one that has what the others don't, and I've booked often there.

Shutterstock came after istock, where I think (I'm not sure) he was a contributor. But Jon's real success has been convincing thousand of artists to sell their works for just some cents. He has been brilliant doing that. Selling is easy if you can offer a mini-price and earn money in the process. 

Quote from: Micky_Mango on October 27, 2014, 13:34
I'm starting to seriously review my situation as an exclusive at IS since the price change to 1 and 3 credits. My sales have fallen badly (I have a lot of vectors and those have been particularly badly hit by being promoted to a price point which is too expensive in a lot of cases) I am assuming that the fact that non-exclusives work is 3 times cheaper makes them more desirable and so I am wondering of non-exclusives sales reflect this, or is it just that most of the buyers have gone?

Well, talking by myself, I'm okey with the prices for exclusives. I even used to sell more S+ and Vetta when they were even more expensive. If I was interested in selling at any price I wouldn't be exclusive at IS (and yes, I'm already doing that with the IS subs, but there's not opt-out).

But they have some photos uploaded in 2010.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on October 01, 2014, 14:51
From my peak, I'd say about 1/6, from a more normal average, probably about 1/4.  As I've said before, a lot of that came from the Agency collection sales, which wouldn't be there now.  Add that to all the recent drops I read of though, I'm guessing I'm doing about 1/2 of what I'd currently make if still exclusive.  Who knows.

I'm at 25% of my peak at IS (exc.) , maybe 33-35% projecting subs and getty sales. Taking hits everetime they make a change.

Sales down a cliff, revenue down. It doesn't seem a good thing to be exclusive at istock right now.

Less sales, less money per sale. Revisiting Plan B.

Quote from: ShadySue on September 08, 2014, 13:16
Well, I'd rather be opted out, or at least just have my choice of old, non-sellers opted in, as each sub sale is like a kick in the stomach; but for sure the volume isn't making up for the sharp dive in regular sales since they started in April. So far (and as you say, it's probably all but over) I have 25% of the subs I sold in July.

Yes, I've also have had about one forth of previous months. Very strange: subs had been on the rise month after month from thebeginning.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 02, 2014, 18:33

Quote from: kaboom on September 02, 2014, 18:30
It means that non-exclusive vectors currently sold for 15 or 12 credits will be all sold for only 5 credits (1 new credit).  So our files will be devaluated. Great, amazing, just what I needed... 

But it sounds like credits are going up in price x5.

I hope so. At the very least 5x. If not, I will have to apply Plan B in emergency mode.

Quote from: Deyan Georgiev on July 23, 2014, 18:10

Divide the amount of money earned by the number of sales for the entire period you sell in Shutterstock, Fotolia, iStock...no matter and You'll see that You work for $1 average with all of them!!!


Let's go do some new shots...

Absolutely false. My RPD is almost 13$ (IS exclusive), and with volume, and I'm a photographer.  There's a difference, from 1 to 13.

On the other hand, even is your general RPD is 1, the 0.29, 0.40 or whatever handout you get at DPC, that's not even half 1, even if the images sell at 1 $. Photographer's comission and price of sale is not the same.

I think you have a lot to learn about the microstock business.

Quote from: Deyan Georgiev on July 23, 2014, 18:10

Divide the amount of money earned by the number of sales for the entire period you sell in Shutterstock, Fotolia, iStock...no matter and You'll see that You work for $1 average with all of them!!!


Let's go do some new shots...

Absolutely false. My RPD is almost 13$ (IS exclusive) and I'm a photographer.  There's a difference, from 1 to 13.

On the other hand, even is your general RPD is 1, the 0.29, 0.40 or whatever handout you get at DPC, that's not even half 1, even if the images sell at 1 $. Photographer's comission and price of sale is not the same.

I think you have a lot to learn about the microstock business.

Quote from: disorderly on July 20, 2014, 23:11

Quote from: loop on July 20, 2014, 23:02

Quote from: disorderly on July 17, 2014, 16:41

Quote from: stvagna on July 17, 2014, 12:40
Every single image on this SS portfolio looks like "inspired" from the same IS exclusive portfolio.

So what?  You can only copyright the execution of a concept, not the concept itself.  And exclusivity constrains the creator of the content, not anyone else who might find inspiration from it.  These concepts are so generic and the executions different enough that I don't see a problem.

It can be as legal as you want (if it really is), but morally is dirty and low.

You have a weird sense of morality, and one I give no weight at all.  Being first doesn't give you any special rights to an idea, any more than shouting FIRST gives your opinion primacy on a comment thread.  But enjoy your moral high ground, while I ignore you in favor of less self-important proclamations.

What you say, tells a lot about you. As a person, and as a stock photographer (for  you doesn't seem able to tell that is something more --much more-- than the naked idea).

Quote from: disorderly on July 17, 2014, 16:41

Quote from: stvagna on July 17, 2014, 12:40
Every single image on this SS portfolio looks like "inspired" from the same IS exclusive portfolio.

So what?  You can only copyright the execution of a concept, not the concept itself.  And exclusivity constrains the creator of the content, not anyone else who might find inspiration from it.  These concepts are so generic and the executions different enough that I don't see a problem.

It can be as legal as you want (if it really is), but morally is dirty and low.

Quote from: PixelBytes on July 14, 2014, 17:28

Quote from: OM on July 14, 2014, 01:01
The thing that i don't understand about some major image factories (with up to 500,000 images) at all the big agencies, is that they stay opted into DPC. For an ODD at SS they get paid ~$3.00 whereas at DPC that same image only brings around 10% of that. Surely, at some point, once buyers see how cheaply they can buy the same image at DPC, they would flock there and the income of the factories would decrease substantially. Lets be fair, without paid DL's at FT and ODD' and SOD's at SS, this game would no longer be worth playing. So, why do the big factories stay at DPC?

I can only assume that buyers are ignorant of the fact that the credit purchase for $10/image they pay at SS can become a $1 purchase at DPC when the same image is offered on both sites. But I really don't understand it at all.

You don't think the big guys get a better deal?

If DPC gets a dollar (less expenses) for every dowload, factories can have a better deal, but not much better.

(Added after thinking a little bit): Except if what tehy offer them is a better place in search results, of course.

Quote from: gostwyck on July 02, 2014, 18:47

Quote from: cobalt on July 02, 2014, 16:42
Jim Pickerell mentioned in one of his articles that istock had a revenue of 180 million. And a few years ago an istock admin told us that the revenue was over 300 million.

It is of course possible that some of that revenue has been redistributed to getty or thinkstock. But this doesn´t help the istock exclusives who make most of their money on istock itself.

ETA: he says that 75% of their sales make 180 million in revenue. So total revenue would be a little higher. Sorry.

http://www.selling-stock.com/Article/can-istock-turn-midstock-sales-around

Ok thanks. I thought it was being stated as an audited fact rather than just Jim's guesstimate ... although I don't think he's too far off. I'm pretty sure that IS's revenues have been in constant decline for ages anyway. You only have to read the monthly sales thread for the evidence of that.

It's interesting that exclusives are reporting sales declining by say 30%, compared to the previous year, whilst revenue has usually declined by a lesser number like 5-10%. It can only mean that IS are still trying to maintain revenue by continually bumping up prices ... which leads to fewer sales ... and so on. When will they ever learn?

If I could choose, all my files would be S+, at S+ prices. According to my own experiencie (after having about 33% of my files demoted from S+ to S) it produces far better revenue.

Quote from: EmberMike on June 30, 2014, 17:09

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on June 28, 2014, 01:34
How do you know these pay out like that?

I sent an email asking for confirmation. I asked:

QuoteI would like clarification on contributor royalties paid out in your monthly subscription plans. It is my understanding that the lowest-priced monthly subscription offer of 5 images per month for $49 pays out subscription royalties to contributors. So in a typical scenario, out of that $9.80 paid per image by the customer, the contributor would get their subscription royalty of $0.30-$0.35. Is that correct?

And the reply I got was:

QuoteYes, you are correct that you receive your fixed royalties of each subscription sale. We have daily subscription plans with $0,15 per image, but your royalty rate remains the same $0.31. Please take a look at our daily plans and you will notice that the most expensive image is $0.46 if customers purchase daily plans.

That doesn't take in account the non-used quotas. After all, this is the main source of benefit por subs sites. You can be sure they are not losing money, these "%&*

Lately, sales are weak for me and for all the other exclusives I know and I talk with. So, a best match change could be an explanation. I really don't know. Last change that hurted me was when they demoted some of my S+ files to S. Those files were selling well as S+ and now are selling less as S. 

Quote from: robhainer on June 08, 2014, 03:13
Ended up with a good first week. Best ever in earnings at nearly $450. Total sales not looking all that good.

You have to give some credit to Shutterstock. It's the only one of these microstock sites that will pay you $150 for an image. Anyone else doing that? Alamy?

I've got as much as 250 $ for some extended licenses at IS. Rare ocassions, yes, but several times through these years.

That, although not ended, is just the first deactivations wave. The second and harder one will come in some time when (if DPC is succedssful), people begin to wonder what happened with their sales at other sites. The ones that knew about DPC but choosed to stay there, will understand that they have shot themselves in the foot. The people that really dind't know what's happening, will know.

Quote from: gostwyck on June 04, 2014, 11:43

Quote from: ShadySue on June 04, 2014, 11:22
Mind you, I bet Yuri gets more than 40% - he almost certainly (I say with no empirical evidence) managed to negotiate a higher percentage along with his faux-exclusive deal.

Very, very unlikely. That's not how it works with Getty.

Instead they suck you in with fawning platitudes like "Professionals deal with professionals" __ and boy, did Yuri fall for that one or what!? Can't quite believe how naive he was. Bless!

Yuri (and Lise) probably get 45%. They got the level, and RC's have been granfathered the last years.

Quote from: luissantos84 on June 03, 2014, 22:46
maybe you need to join Yuri's team loop

he had 4k sales a day from 60k files at SS which is much less than 350 a day from 1000 files

anyway Yuri continues to be a funny guy, after reading his forecast I decided to quit SS and join iStock!

Wnat you want, but I'm sure these IS figures are somewhat miscalculated and, so, are worthless.

Quote from: robhainer on June 03, 2014, 21:49
Yesterday was good. Today is almost like a holiday. I don't know what is going on.

Sooner or later, IS subs will have an impact on SS. And also DPC, of course, and more regarding OnDemand sales.

Duplicated.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 03, 2014, 20:04
On October 12 I wrote:
Interesting factoid: "Yuri" is showing "greater than 25,000 sales" on 78,000 images since the new identity was created in April. I'm rather surprised to see that one of his top business images is selling in the 10cr-55cr price bracket.

Today that identity has "greater than 54,000 sales", which means that portfolio, which still has 78,000 images has achieved 19,000 sales in 37 weeks. Which is 513 sales per week = 26,704 sales per year, = approx. one sale for every three images over the course of a year.

So if you have 1,000 Yuri-quality images on iStock, you could expect to get about 350 sales a year, or a sale a day. Presumably a lot of them are priced at Vetta levels (I can't be bothered to try to estimate how many are and how many are not) but even so, the return on effort for a top exclusive doesn't look all that amazingly exciting to me.  Perhaps that is why they have to allow him to sell on loads of other agencies as well as being "exclusive" with them.

It suggests to me that all the exclusive's sales are struggling. It looks as if I will sell about one file in two from my non-exclusive portfolio on iStock this year - obviously at a much lower price point than Yuri's.

Sorry, but something is amiss in this calculation. Not being a great stock shooter, not working with great production expenses, best models etc, and so, not having "great quality images", I sell way more than 350 sales a year for every 1.000 photos. And when I say way more, I mean way more.

Quote from: Asthebelltolls on May 29, 2014, 18:13
I know we all have our "reviewer" stories. I thought I'd share my most recent one with you....

I've tried and failed a number of times to get on with IS. My last attempt included three images that have been with SS for approximately 18 months. Collectively they've sold 517 times and earned me $417.40 with SS alone. I've sold the same three images many times with other agencies but SS is by far my most successful agency.....

Those three images were rejected by IS because: "We feel your images are not up to IStock standards...."

Really? They're obviously up to everybody else's standards including, most importantly, the buyers' standards.

It's another example of the reviewer crap shoot. Did they base their opinion on the current submission or on past failed attempts? And most importantly, is this an agency that I want to be judged by?

Wells, these things goes both ways. An image that in my indie times was rejected by SS has sold more than a thousand times at IS (now as S+). You never know.