pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - pro@stockphotos

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7
126
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: January 19, 2012, 09:10 »
January sales are currently way above average - whatever settings are in play right now, I'm liking a lot!

Same here.

"Another pint of Kool-Aid for my two friends here please"

It's going to be a real shame for these two when they sober up in a few months time __ because Istock's significance as a major player is now measured in months not years. Only the most die-hard, swivel-eyed apostles of Istock will still be exclusive come 2013.

It's interesting for those who have been on the wrong side of predicting whether it's more monetarily beneficial to be exclusive with istock for the last 5 years to now being able to predict the next 14 months.  Truth is over the last 5 years indies have lost a ton of money with this bet.  Didn't Sean report 2011 as his best $$$$ money year ever.  How is that a decline?  Yuri said his sales were down everywhere in terms of $$$ in 2011 for the first time since 2005.  Which one is reporting a decline?   How do you ignore one report and ignore the other report and tout the end of a company?

127

I really, really dont want to. But with the total lack of communication from HQ on how they want to increase sales and grow the business, you begin to wonder if growing the business is still something they are interested in. And if nobody contacted the talent that just quit exclusivity to talk to them and see how to win them back, then the exclusives are apparently not a priority as they used to be. I am also amazed at the "attitude" some admins are allowed to show in public. The contributors are paying customers, obviously there is no boss in charge reminding them where their salaries come from.



 I was talking to a top 10 exclusive a while back and my question was "does istock every contact you?"  I asked this because you would think istock would have a team that manages the top 50 exclusives just like any company's sales force.  The top 10 exclusive thought about the question and said "no, they have not ever contacted me outside of standard e-mails everyone else gets".  That is crazy to me.  I know sales reps who territory brings half the sales of this istock contributor who talk to a sales manager weekly and is flown to HQ for training/meetings yearly.  It is a weird business!  There is a wall up between istock and exclusive contributors that is a major problem for contributor relations.   It has gotten worse with the appointment of the new "insert title here" lady.  It is as though getty bought istock and doesn't have to worry about any other competition rising up against them in their minds. 

128
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: January 13, 2012, 11:30 »
And if Yuri's content was so important to me that I would leave if it wasn't available, then I would go to one of the sites that are cheaper and have two or three times as many of his pics as iStock does.

Hmmm. Istock have 8K of Yuri's images available to download at at cost of nearly $50 for the largest size or $15 for a medium.

SS have over 53K of Yuri's images available to download at a cost of $9 for any size.

Not only that but on SS you can actually find what you're looking for without having to change browsers, clear cache, learn a special language ... or anything really. Does anyone still wonder why SS are gaining customers and Istock are losing them?



If you saw his early work, it was not nearly that advanced.  The interesting event was the "leap" to perfection was not exactly time consuming.  It was a near carbon copy to the top istock exclusive who went picked up a camera at 36 for the first time and became dominant with in months.  I guess if these two did it then they are replaceable just as far as it being possible.  When you look at some of the others in the top ten you see a more organic progression to advanced stock photos.  I guess its surprising that more "warp" speed progressions did not come out of nowhere considering the dollars to be made if all it takes is assembling a "team". 

129
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: January 11, 2012, 13:38 »
I think Istock are STILL excluding indies on certain searches and favouring crowns.

so it is beneficial to be exclusive, now that surprises me, who would have thought ...

Can you point me to where near total exclusion of non-exclusive files in searches was touted as an exclusive benefit?  I've been on Istock for 7 years, and while there was always an exclusive bias, customers used to be presented with a reasonable choice of indy images too.    

Customers expect "best match" to best suit their search terms, not to be a way of further padding the company's bottom line.  If a customer wanted to see only exclusive images, that has always been an option.  No need to incorporate it into best match.  GOOD exclusive images and talented artists have always been able to stand on their own without rigging the game.

It's not about "riggin the game" its about not "bleeding out" as promoting indies in the IS best match was a slow but quickening death.  Who knows if relegating indies to TS is going to work? But, I remember for a long time here the reporting of SS growth at the expense of IS.  Would you expect IS to see these internal numbers and just continue along this strategy while it benefited only independents and IS loses more market share.   It doesn't bother me to see indies upset with istock for protecting its market share.  I guess one of your baskets is braking eggs.   

130
iStockPhoto.com / Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
« on: January 11, 2012, 10:06 »
This is something I've been struggling with for the last couple of weeks now.
Does TS bite in SS sales? if so then I would immediately remove my SS best Sellers from IS.
SS triples my IS income and I doubt this will change anytime soon.

This what I have said over the last couple of months.  I was promptly told that price was not the defining issue to buyers.  That even though you were distributing your photos online to sites that were selling the exact photos at different price points the buyers were going to equally choose between expensive price points ( istock, dreamstime, etc.)  and the cheap sites like SS.   I found this wishful thinking as when I looked for some top selling indies on istock at the SS and even bigstock they were basically in the same position of the best match.  The only difference was they were even easier to find since there weren't any istock exclusives in the mix.  Lets see BMW is selling its M3 at its company owned dealership for $69,000 and down the street the non-BMW car shack has the exact M3 for $4600 ( actually difference between cost of IS and SS for same photo at the  large file size for a independent file).  But I love the lattes at BMW.  so I will pay the higher price. 
   Getty has seen this price war before.  So now instead of getting thumped by a low price site they are keeping SS in check by creating their own SS.  This will keep SS from raising prices to compete with Istock.  Without exclusive content SS is stuck in the low price model.

131
iStockPhoto.com / Re: For Indies who pulled ports from Istock...
« on: January 08, 2012, 15:42 »
Contributor-wise yes, traffic and consequently profit wise, it hasn't payed off, they're in a downward spiral, so I think they're gonna put even more on stake this time/next time.

But also, when it comes to contributor wise, I think they've demotivated a lot of ppl, more than they actually motivated (I'm talking about exclusives, I don't know how could any indie get motivated by their action). They kept most ports and content online, but we'll never know just how much less lots of ppl uploaded, compared to what they would have if they wouldn't make the cuts (for lots of them, those affected really)

Maybe the people running it just aren't so good at microstock.  They are dominant in Sports, Entertainment and Editorial and RM.  I guess 4 out of 5 is not that bad.  I remember it did not go so well when they tried to compete with istock before buying them.  I don't think they would have ever been able to beat them in market place with the last 3 years of decisions.  It doesn't seem like they know how to run a competitive microstock company very well.  They could not leave well enough alone. 

132
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Sales have tanked big time
« on: January 06, 2012, 22:10 »
I guess if you put up a great photo it will sell like crazy even over xmas break

  when I noticed this photo it had 17 views and 8 buys.  I have never seen that before.  I had a photo that had 3 views and 2 buys and it took off but that was back when photos were selling like crazy.

 here's the link

   http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-18762114-welcome-home-entrance-double-doorway-flowers-in-pots.php?     st=bd46454

  It's amazing to see this file take off in istocks slowdown according to the opinions on here.

133
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Sales have tanked big time
« on: January 06, 2012, 14:35 »
Yesterday i met with an exclusive diomand. he wants to meet me cause he wants to ask how i am doing recently as an independent. He told me that he and his two close friends wants to throw their crown after terrible dec. statistics. I loved istock but never behave like cherry leader but they were really behaving cherry leader for istock. They both sold more than 400000 in istock. If they throw their crown this will be really big blood lost for istock.

  It is only since 2006 since the best exclusives sales blew up.  Look at the best selling Xmas exclusive on istock.  She had 25K dl  on June 2007.  Now she has 330K.  Does this mean that someone who joins today istock could get 300K sales in the next 4.5 years if they upload the same quality of photos that she did over that time.  I would argue no.  Will she have 300K dl in the next 4.5 years.  No.  She had 60K sales over xmas a couple years ago, this year around 15k.  Will she make more if she skirts istock exclusivity now.  Don't think so.  If she had not been Istock exclusive over the last 4.5 years she would have lost  at least $400,000.   I guarantee that much.  Istock exclusives should view the last 5 years as an IPO they were lucky enough to get in on instead of what they should expect to make every year.  Most in the top ten of istock weren't even making a living through photography before 2005.  It was hobby for most if anything at all.  The question of replacing the istock income looks to be pressing for most exclusives and independents.  It looks like both are unhappy with the loss of sales on istock.  Istock seems to have opened the door to competition.  I am not sure what this will do.  I know that everyone as an independent won't work.  Has it ever been like that in stock photography?  I don't see that working with the forces of the market place.  It seems like SS is moving to be like the "before getty"  istock.  Someone is going to have become dominant to provide higher prices if not istock.  Istock is battling ss trying to hold them to their low price model with TS.  Someone will lead and dictate to the marketplace through the highest sales and best product.  Everyone having the same product won't work.

134
General Photography Discussion / Re: More Stolen Pics At Flickr
« on: December 31, 2011, 19:52 »
Yeah the real problem with flickr is that I have seen many large websites like cnbc or yahoo using their photos in showing lists such as best cities to  (fill in the blank) or photos above stories.  I always cringed when I saw them, now they could be using stolen images according to this post.

135
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: December 30, 2011, 09:44 »
No!  there is no reason for SS, to start messing around with their search, they have not got an exclusivity program!  everone is an independant ( thats where they went right from the start). i.e.  they dont have to construde a search, geared towards certain contributors or any other funny stuff. It wouldnt render anything.

Wut!  is right though, many IS exclusives ( not saying you in particular)  but they do not want to listen to all the SOD, EL, etc, etc, but want to think of it, just as a subs site. Yet, many times per week, my SOD sales, EL, etc, are by far outnumbering the subs.

Other good agencies as FT and DT, yes sometimes they do a change but within reason,  reason for everybody, not like IS, totally demolishing many portfolios. Nobody minds a constructive search-change. Not destructive changes.

Can TS introduce " SOD, EL, etc, etc," and did SS start with these higher price offerings when they first started out?  In other words TS may not be stuck at low subscription pricing in the future.

136
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: December 29, 2011, 10:24 »

Have you looked at the prices of your images at istock vs other agencies.  At one agency I could buy 15 of your images for the cost of one image at istock.  They are the exact same image.  No difference whatsoever.  But price isn't the cause of the loss of sales to istock???  


Sorry, perhaps I am failing to get my point across.  I'll try one more time, and if you still don't get it, well maybe my language skills need some work.

I am not denying there is a price differential between independent files on Istock and other sites, nor that some buyers would be looking for the best price.  What I am saying is that the price differential is not the reason for the RECENT (past year) exodus of buyers.  How do I know this?  There has been a price differential for several years, and Istock was selling very, very well for independents, and was the top or second place earner for pretty much every independent supplier until this year.  If it was only price that was the issue, then sales would have shown it all along.  

Sales have only become anemic in the past year since Istock went off the rails, so obviously PRICE of independent content is not the reason.  

Here are some suggestions about why buyers may have gone elsewhere:
1.  Too many broken promises to contributors, many of whom are buyers.
2.  Wonky searches, site outages and other IT bugs
3.  Front loading of Vetta/Agency files which serve only a limited market and cost dozens of times more
4.  Non-responsive customer service
5.  Snotty "don't let the door hit you in the a$$ on the way out" attitude expressed to any buyer who dares bring up issues in the forums

The list goes on and on.  As does the Buyers Bail thread http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/buyers-bailing-on-istock/, which has 61 pages of departures and site issues, spanning more than a year.  

Can someone let me know if I have explained this coherently enough or if there is something I am leaving out?  



This is the disconnect for me as you have reported the decline of IS this year with the rise of the your other sites.  You felt this was good for "?", I am guessing for those who did not put all their eggs in one basket.  It appears promoting independents was a slow death for IS as the other agencies said we sell the same for less.  The prices you are receiving at the other agencies are being supported buy IS exclusive content and higher pricing.  If IS goes away, then your price support is removed and what else is separating the collections on the other agencies?  Or another agency has to seize contributors as exclusives to elevate their brand and price point.  In your explanation above you failed to address the magic formula that going to leave this marketplace alone that has attacked every other one that has no separation in their products. 
 

137
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: December 28, 2011, 14:30 »
Best match at iStock no longer finds the most relevant image, rather it locates most relevant image from a very small subsection of the collection. This is not in any customer`s best interest so there is now yet another incentive for customers to move on to other sites. They are the authors of their own demise.

"Other sites" contain none of istock exclusive content, have the same images of the major independent produces and these sites are made more relevant by having what exactly?"  It seems to me they have what would be called a national brand.  Istock is currently the only site holding up the prices of microstock.  Look what has happened to the cost of TV's.  I saw where a 42" tv is on average cheaper than a ipad.  How is that possible.  without istock or a company who fills that roll prices will collapse just like they have done in TVs and PCs and any other product that has the same suppliers competing in a market place without major differing traits besides pricing. 

138
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: December 28, 2011, 13:55 »
  Besides sticking a link at the bottom saying this file is cheaper (way cheaper) at SS and every other rf site.   You saw the recent ad by Bigstock saying we have the same files for 60% cheaper.   I am not sure how this business models survives.   Price is not a factor that can be overcome by (features, service, or fancy colors).   Yes istock took more profit from independents, but they lost a lot of market share and strengthened their competitors.  Not a very good long term business strategy. 

Well, considering that (to my knowledge) EVERY other microstock site charges less than Istock and pays contributors a higher percentage, it seems to be quite doable.  In fact, most of the other major sites are thriving as Istock appears in decline.  Seems to me that it is Istock who has strengthened their competitors, and does not have a good long-term business strategy. 

FWIW, it was not the price differential that has caused Istock's buyers to abandon it for SS.  There has been a big price difference for a number of years.  Whatever the reason for the shift was, it most certainly wasn't the price difference on independent files.

Have you looked at the prices of your images at istock vs other agencies.  At one agency I could buy 15 of your images for the cost of one image at istock.  They are the exact same image.  No difference whatsoever.  But price isn't the cause of the loss of sales to istock??? 

139
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: December 28, 2011, 11:57 »
This best match is not better not worse than any of the precedents. In some aspects is better (more original content on front of costumers), in some worse (less cheap files in front). I don't think many customers will even notice it.  And yes, it's better for some contributors and worse for other..., but that's another matter, completely different.

Personally I think the best match is far worse than before. For a start many searches are dominated by a few newly-uploaded series by the same contributor/s thus offering less immediate choice. There's a reason why best-selling images are 'best-sellers' __ they're the ones the buyers liked the most (when they could actually find them). Suppressing such images behind a motley group of 'fresh' but largely boring and similar content is unlikely to thrill the buyers much.

Anyway, we'll soon see what happens won't we? The 'How was your January' thread on the IS forum should be illuminating.

Well, I have read the thoughts of independents for a long time on here.  And the couple of themes independents agreed on were keeping files "not all eggs in one basket" and this decision was leading to a mitigated loss effect with the fall of istock.  Many reporting the rise of SS at the expense of istock.  The common link between the two sites was selling the same independent files at different prices.  What would you in this scenario?  Besides sticking a link at the bottom saying this file is cheaper (way cheaper) at SS and every other rf site.   You saw the recent ad by Bigstock saying we have the same files for 60% cheaper.   I am not sure how this business models survives.   Price is not a factor that can be overcome by (features, service, or fancy colors).   Yes istock took more profit from independents, but they lost a lot of market share and strengthened their competitors.  Not a very good long term business strategy. 

140
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: December 28, 2011, 10:27 »
This change has just killed my business there!  IS used to be so good for me.

The best match change has killed all the independents business for as long as its like this.  The best selling microstock producer best selling photos are not even on the first 600 images of the most popular key words.  I am sure this is a shock to independents even considering the weak time of year for sales. 

141
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: December 27, 2011, 10:59 »
This best match will give a boost to exclusives but also will makes life harder who plans to throw their crown.

If there is a cunning plan behind this, this could be it.

Anyway, whatever it means, my sales seem normal for the time of year. Go figure.

Maybe the other "cunning plan" is to try to stop the bleeding off of sales to the cheaper sites.  Obviously what has been good for the independent over the last 3 years has not been good for the exclusive.  Independents have been reporting the rising sales at other sites and the falling sales at istock.   As an independent you have a not all my eggs in one basket approach.  The same approach for istock would be to mitigate this loss of sales to competing sites.  As an exclusive I hope what ever actions istock takes makes you object.  If you are in agreement with their policies it can't be good for exclusives.   

142
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: December 24, 2011, 14:45 »
I do pay my models, but they aren't agency models, nor do I fly them in from anywhere, and most of the time they do their own makeup.    Locations costs a couple of hundred, or trade for images.  Props are reused as much as possible.  I don't travel to shoot - I don't see the need.  I'm intent on keeping my costs down so my net is as large as possible.  I'd say my costs are around %5 or so of my gross.  I'm sure Lisafx is the same as well as many of the others here.  Lise uses her husband for a lot of her stuff - her locations used to be her apartment.  If I wanted to work a lot more and make a lot less, I'd follow a different model.

Your cost might also include "benefits" which equal zero at istock.  Normal benefits (bonus, health insurance, retirement, etc.) on a salary job add up to 40% above your salary.  I would say that is definitely at cost at istock.

143
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: December 24, 2011, 10:32 »
Christian, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about spreading stuff around. The most scientific microstocker alive is Arcurs, he calculates everything to maximise profit, and he believes in supplying every single site he can.

It is presumptuous to assume exclusives at istock have made miscalculations in terms of maximizing profits.

There are two people with direct knowledge and a perfect comparable sample size to nail down the "which one is better"  independent or exclusive to istock.  It is the aforementioned Yuri and Lise Gagne.  If these two giants of the stock photo world would reveal their total earnings it would settle this question of which decision has been better in the last 6 years.  One has had a better bottom line on the balance sheet.  I wonder if they have privately compared notes?

I know by the comparing of incomes of large independents revealed on here it seems like the exclusives have made a lot more of this period of time. 

144
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: December 23, 2011, 18:06 »
Apple brand products are not sold exclusively by Apple, and there are competitors for iPads and iPhones - lots of companies have tried with Android tablets and smartphones. They've been very successful with the smartphones and almost a total failure with tablets. Apple also sells products that other people make - have you shopped at the Apple store for hardware? And the iTunes store is stuffed with goods that Apple didn't make.

When you say exclusive stuff only, what exactly were you referring to?

I'm not sure how your point pertains iStock's exclusivity where until very recently I couldn't buy anything from an iStock exclusive artist anywhere but iStockphoto.com. Now it's Getty family exclusivity, kind of - as Getty's contracts with Corbis result in work from iStock exclusives showing up there and other non-Getty distributors.

Apple is exclusive in what price they set for their products.  If you an Macbook its the same price not matter the supplier therefore they skip the cutthroat Dell vs Gateway pricing wars.  As an exclusive on istock the price of the image is controlled by one company even if offered over different market segments.  You have to admit this is the only way apple can charge $1600 for laptop when a Toshiba with comparable specs is $375.

145
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: December 22, 2011, 15:31 »

   It has nothing to do with the "If the exclusive content is so superior".  It has to do with content and the price of the images.  ... You cannot compete on price and act as though the buyers won't notice and gravitate to the cheapest next best option. 

It wasn't contributors' idea to price exclusive content higher than independent or to exclude independents from Vetta. iStock raised the price of exclusive content a few years back - you can't then accuse independents of competing on price because they didn't get to participate in the increase.

If iStock wished to, they could have made Vetta and Agency image exclusive (sort of the way they did with any 'lypse content that an independent would shoot, or DT does with its assignment photos).

The current search results for best match are just not putting forward very appealing results. Whatever meat grinder they want to put the collection through, it should produce something that looks great for the first page or two and this algorithm doesn't. They did change it a bit from yesterday - moving independent content ever so slightly forward - so perhaps even they see an issue with it.

One thing I know is photography is not a science and it's very subjective.  I thought to myself when the independents were dominating the best match on the istock search, the results were not very appealing.  A lot of times on here its more like a atheist vs catholic or liberal vs conservative...  it just depends on which side you see yourself on.  I just know that independents do not help istock in the long run.  If it was a win win for istock then both istock and shutterstock would be growing from all the wonderful independents.  Istock propped up its competition by having the independents succeed at the cost of its growth in market share.  

146
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: December 22, 2011, 11:19 »
   The perception at Istock that a collection of exclusive content can compete without independent photographers' content showing up in searches is a mistake, i would say. If the exclusive content is so superior, it would have risen to the top without having to bury non-exclusive images. But it's their company, and they can do what they want. Contributors have no say in what happens. For me, it makes it much easier to not bother with Istock for still images, since new files rarely get seen anyway. For exclusives at Istock, the message seems to be keep contributing new work, and don't try to coast on legacy images. So if that's the way it's going to be, then they have their marching orders, and they better get at it.

   It has nothing to do with the "If the exclusive content is so superior".  It has to do with content and the price of the images.  If independents are as good or close to the best exclusive and their photos are selling just as well then eventually when there are site problems or price increases then buyers surely say what else is available.  That is when they might discover that yuri's exact image is sitting there at a competitor for $1 instead of $15.   And independents think this if a fair business model for all involved.  You cannot compete on price and act as though the buyers won't notice and gravitate to the cheapest next best option.  A site with very little exclusive content has exactly what to offer besides price?  Independents seem to notice that istock is taking buyers from getty and ignore the reasons the cheaper sites are taking buyers from istock.
 

147
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Another Massive Best Match Shift
« on: December 22, 2011, 08:55 »

 Giving exclusives a better best match and new content from exclusive great best match shows a worrying pattern not just for independents but many old faithfuls will see an accelerating decline in income. Sales from Istock already appear down only made up by higher prices and TS. Searches will not look better at Istock than elsewhere. I would say they may look worse, more expensive and have less variety. Tell me I am wrong but this is business. Money is being made short term without real long term strategies (apart from sell on the basis of record profits). Certainlt what happens to contributors is not part of the plan. It is better to get in "collections", no inspection required and good cash rewards than deal with contributors en masse.

    I completely am baffled by these claims.  You say istock is making a mistake by having content no one else has and their higher prices can not support this exclusive content.  You say they would be better to continue with showcasing independents that are on every site out there where price the only difference.
      I was shocked a few years back when best match was so utterly dominated by Yuri and then MBI.  That was truly a short term profit strategy that had no long term health for istock.  Now, maybe because independents thought this foolish short term money grab was smart they are surprised.  But in truth it made no business sense to feature content that is not exclusive.  Did you not see the Bigstock ad saying they were (some percentage) cheaper than istock.  Well now that marketing strategy doesn't hold water.  I remember looking at other sites a while back and seeing the same images on the best match of every site.  It was dumb of istock to have the basic same best match as shutterstock when prices were not the same.  It would be like Coca-cola allowing their exact formula to be sold in cheaper bottles by competitors.  Coke charges a premium for their product because no one else has it.  How is price supported otherwise?

148
iStockPhoto.com / Re: New Getty contributor on IS
« on: December 18, 2011, 11:35 »
Now, the buyer gets nothing new - they could get all this stuff, if they wanted, at Getty Images.
Or indeed, they could get near identical stuff, at a fraction of the price, in the ports of some of the top independents. Only difference being the actual models, and not even always that (see above).

Hey Monkeybussinessimages has been a uploading a collection she amassed from how many years back onto Istock and anyone else who will have her.  The collection was taken with a 1ds mark II which came out in what year (2003).  These images are being sold as new with no mention that they have been used in previous years for who knows what. 

149
iStockPhoto.com / Re: Sales have tanked big time
« on: December 17, 2011, 10:17 »
...I'd like to point out that it is still feasible that they may not actually be getting hit hard financially because best match matches may simply be shifting searches through to other contributors that may not be active on any internet forums hence we really are left in the dark as to how good or bad their sales really are - i find this frustrating...
That's true, there are several people that used to post a lot here but stopped after they went exclusive.  Until they come here and tell us they are also experiencing a sales slump, I'm not convinced that things are as gloomy with istock as some here would like.

There's also the fact that more and more contributors have joined istock and we might be suffering from dilution but istock could still be doing OK overall.  It looks like they have lost a lot of business to SS but they might be doing well enough to give them the impression that their strategy is working.

If things were really as bad as they seem, wouldn't they be doing more about it?

I noticed that Lisegagne, the star Istockphoto contributor, passed the 1 million sales mark in May 2010.  She crossed the 500,000 mark three years before, which means that her images must have been selling at least 166,000 times (and due to growth being exponential, more like 200,000 times.)  

Well, her Istockphoto page still shows her at 1,100,000+, which means that at the very least, she has yet to cross the 1,200,000 mark, despite 1.6 years since she crossed the 1 million mark, which suggests that her sales have slowed down (at least 20% but perhaps more likely more), despite her having 7,808 images (I remember her having something like 5,900 images around two years ago.  Of course, it probably doesn't bother her that much to go from perhaps $1 million a year to perhaps $500,000 to $700,000 a year, but its still a noticeable decrease.

Don't mistake sales with income. Three years ago files were priced at 1, 2 3... (or 1, 3 5... I'm not sure) and now are more expensive.  It's sure that sales have slowed down, and that files that passed from "regular" to E+, Vetta and Agency sell way less. But that doesn't mean she's losing income (I really don't know: maybe yes, maybe not ),  even with the ugly reduction from 45% to 30% for Vetta and Agency.

Well considering she went to graphic design school at 36 at some community college in Canada trying to figure out what to do with her life, then just picked up a camera and found istock ;), she probably is not complaining about what ever decreased income you have figured out for her. 

150
iStockPhoto.com / Re: How do you feel about IStock?
« on: December 15, 2011, 16:19 »
I have a feeling however that 2012 may well be an extremely turbulent year for our industry. Unless TPTB at Istock can turn their ship around...

Why is the fate of the industry viewed as always being in the hands of istock/getty? istock is not the microstock industry. They're not even the market leader anymore, and really from where I'm sitting, they're hardly even top-5 material.

Frankly I couldn't care less about istock right now or how they'll fare in 2012. This month istock is on pace to represent around 7% of my total microstock earnings, and that number is falling regularly. They're pretty much insignificant to me at this point


This is why I did not quote your sales.  I quoted the best selling independent contributor.  I can find you smaller istock contributors that had BME last month.  I notice you do not equate their success as istock is doing great.  Therefore, if there is no istock then everybody is selling the same product in different bottles.  How long before buyers realise and go to the cheapest bottler.  It's business 101,  they don't even have to drive to get the product. 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors