Author Topic: Do you believe that DT is dying? (Read 75094 times)

pancaketom · « **Reply #50 on:** January 19, 2015, 22:03 »

I am guessing the earnings page was done by someone who either was not interested in making the relevant information easily visible or perhaps with the goal of obscuring it. It was painfully easy to see when the last 20 sales were all subs before, now that is harder to see. As a painful aside I got a new low for credit value .118 ouch.

angelawaye · « **Reply #51 on:** January 22, 2015, 12:16 »

It is so very sad that DT is dying off for me. Not good at all. I'm trying to figure out a way to make up for the loss of money every month. I used to be hopeful but now I better start planning ...

PixelBytes · « **Reply #52 on:** January 22, 2015, 13:38 »

The google deal smacks of desperation, so I do think DT as we know it is dying. Serban is taking some big back end payout to give away the library to google. After this and what they did at Getty, google seem like a jackal picking over the bones of dying businesses.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #53 on:** January 22, 2015, 14:07 »

Doing something like this Google deal, is just another example of how they ("they" being most of the agencies) are not open or forthcoming with the facts. When questioned they dodge and give convoluted non-answers. I wouldn't know about the changes in reporting, I left. But if its designed to hide the facts and the truth, then DT just joined the club.

But here's the last straw of 2015 - DT will be sold, merged or taken over, which will complete the end of independence for the "Big Four". This Google deal is just a precursor to that happening.

No Free Lunch · « **Reply #54 on:** January 22, 2015, 18:56 »

Quote from: Rinderart on January 16, 2015, 01:06

Quote from: w7lwi on December 10, 2014, 19:48
While not in the same league as Shutterstock, DT still does fairly well for me and I take several payouts each year. This is probably due to a relatively large number of individual sales in the $5 to $10 range each month, along with the usual $0.35 subscription sales and an occasional EL. So are they dying ... not so far as I am concerned.

really?

500+ a month was normal for me for 5 years. Now a 100 is a big deal. SAD. the whole business is sad unless you think a few payouts a year is good. And One of the Problems now. to many make to little and are happy with it. They love you guys. Keep uploading.......We did. And here we are.

This reminds me of an old Beatles Song- "Yesderday"

For those kids that have never heard it here are the words-

Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away
Now it looks as though they're here to stay
oh, I believe in yesterday

Suddenly, I'm not half the man I used to be
There's a shadow hanging over me
Oh, yesterday came suddenly.

Why she had to go?
I don't know, she wouldn't say
I said something wrong
Now I long for yesterday.

Yesterday love was such an easy game to play
Now I need a place to hide away
Oh, I believe in yesterday.

Why she had to go?
I don't know, she wouldn't say
I said something wrong
Now I long for yesterday.

Yesterday love was such an easy game to play
Now I need a place to hide away
Oh, I believe in yesterday...

littleny · « **Reply #55 on:** February 11, 2015, 07:39 »

My sales on DT are not flat...they are nearly dead. 2350 Online files. They used to be my 2nd biggest earner. So far February barely has a pulse. what?

melastmohican · « **Reply #56 on:** February 11, 2015, 10:33 »

Somebody will buy them soon, either vulture capitalist like in Getty case or white knight in shiny armor like Adobe :-)

Pixart · « **Reply #57 on:** February 11, 2015, 11:00 »

Can anyone remember when DT announced their exciting news about giving photos away to some mysterious partner? I didn't take note of when I opted out of partner sales, but my sales started getting bad in August. Maybe their partner program was earning 25% - 50% of my earnings? Or is it because there are so many former Istock Exclusives on the roster?

PixelBytes · « **Reply #58 on:** February 11, 2015, 14:51 »

Quote from: Pixart on February 11, 2015, 11:00

Can anyone remember when DT announced their exciting news about giving photos away to some mysterious partner? I didn't take note of when I opted out of partner sales, but my sales started getting bad in August. Maybe their partner program was earning 25% - 50% of my earnings? Or is it because there are so many former Istock Exclusives on the roster?

Didn't that turn out to be the Google $2 for unlimited downloads deal?

Cesar · « **Reply #59 on:** February 11, 2015, 16:14 »

my portfolio was also dying, but now in february i got 100% boost, there is al lot of 1.90$, is that google deal?

Quote from: PixelBytes on February 11, 2015, 14:51

Quote from: Pixart on February 11, 2015, 11:00
Can anyone remember when DT announced their exciting news about giving photos away to some mysterious partner? I didn't take note of when I opted out of partner sales, but my sales started getting bad in August. Maybe their partner program was earning 25% - 50% of my earnings? Or is it because there are so many former Istock Exclusives on the roster?

Didn't that turn out to be the Google $2 for unlimited downloads deal?

Mantis · « **Reply #60 on:** February 11, 2015, 18:30 »

DT goes in cycles. Lots of subs then a few days of OD's. That cycle, for me anyhow, is getting very large. About three weeks of subs and 4-5 days of a mix of subs and OD's, then I will get 30-50 straight subs. My sales are way down because of this new, aggressive sub push by DT. They are now performing like Photodune.

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #61 on:** February 11, 2015, 18:50 »

I am seeing the same pattern, with the strings of subs getting longer and longer. The only good thing is that the subs sales do increase the levels of the images so the credit sales may be larger when they come.

The Google deal was supposed to have kicked in after Jan. 31st but I haven't heard of anyone getting any so I don't think those sales have started registering yet. I think it was delayed due to all of the people who opted out. Those are supposed to be for $2 so your $1.90 amounts are probably normal credit sales.

CommuniCat · « **Reply #62 on:** February 12, 2015, 02:04 »

Perhaps primitively, I've traditionally viewed SS, IS and DT as the three main players. So it came as some surprise to me that Adobe chose to buy FT for a truly staggering amount of money.

If Adobe spent that much money on buying a stock agency asset, they must be gearing up to turn that into real value for their business over the next few years. That must be a game changer, one way or another, for the whole stock industry.

But why did they buy FT and not DT? Surely DT is the "better" agency to own. Surely Adobe would have done their due diligence before dropping $700-million on a stock agency asset? So what did they find?

Had a chuckle when considering a glaringly obvious DT failure . . . that they have spent ~~the last 10 years~~ a bloody long time insisting on a mad "similars" policy.

They have refused many truck-loads of high-selling images and substantially reduced the value of the only thing that has any value to a big player like Adobe - the images in their database.

If their daft policies have been annoying for us, consider how pissed off buyers get when they can only find a quarter of the portfolio of their favorite stock artist. Then consider how much money DT has lost itself in revenue for refusing such images. They have lost so much more revenue than all of us combined - because they have lost the biggest slice of the all the sales.

DT is one of the prettiest girls at the ball, but she has bad teeth resulting in rotten breath. Everyone keeps on saying she should see a dentist, but she stubbornly refuses to accept her problem. Now the prince has visited the ball and it's too late, he has chosen the lesser maiden with reasonable dental hygiene.

As far as I can tell, the whole industry is in a state of flux. Somehow I feel that the elephant just entered the room and it's already having an impact. And for DT, the horse just bolted and they are at least five years too late to close the stable door.

Mantis · « **Reply #63 on:** February 12, 2015, 08:42 »

Quote from: alistaircotton on February 12, 2015, 02:04

Perhaps primitively, I've traditionally viewed SS, IS and DT as the three main players. So it came as some surprise to me that Adobe chose to buy FT for a truly staggering amount of money.

If Adobe spent that much money on buying a stock agency asset, they must be gearing up to turn that into real value for their business over the next few years. That must be a game changer, one way or another, for the whole stock industry.

But why did they buy FT and not DT? Surely DT is the "better" agency to own. Surely Adobe would have done their due diligence before dropping $700-million on a stock agency asset? So what did they find?

Had a chuckle when considering a glaringly obvious DT failure . . . that they have spent the last 10 years insisting on a mad "similars" policy.

They have refused many truck-loads of high-selling images and substantially reduced the value of the only thing that has any value to a big player like Adobe - the images in their database.

If their daft policies have been annoying for us, consider how pissed off buyers get when they can only find a quarter of the portfolio of their favorite stock artist. Then consider how much money DT has lost itself in revenue for refusing such images. They have lost so much more revenue than all of us combined - because they have lost the biggest slice of the all the sales.

DT is one of the prettiest girls at the ball, but she has bad teeth resulting in rotten breath. Everyone keeps on saying she should see a dentist, but she stubbornly refuses to accept her problem. Now the prince has visited the ball and it's too late, he has chosen the lesser maiden with reasonable dental hygiene.

As far as I can tell, the whole industry is in a state of flux. Somehow I feel that the elephant just entered the room and it's already having an impact. And for DT, the horse just bolted and they are at least five years too late to close the stable door.

Enjoyed your post and agree fully.

Pixart · « **Reply #64 on:** February 12, 2015, 12:49 »

GREAT POST, but it hasn't been 10 years, I think maybe 4 or 5. I joined in 2006 and it was a few years after that! I think it was when I shot a series of Irish dance photos that they didn't want, around 2011 (of course they were happy to select what I thought was the worst one... ah well). But they do have all those lovely series with "turn-of-the-century" styling and digital cameras.

Quote from: alistaircotton on February 12, 2015, 02:04

Had a chuckle when considering a glaringly obvious DT failure . . . that they have spent the last 10 years insisting on a mad "similars" policy.

CommuniCat · « **Reply #65 on:** February 12, 2015, 13:46 »

Quote from: Pixart on February 12, 2015, 12:49

GREAT POST, but it hasn't been 10 years, I think maybe 4 or 5.

Good point - the number of years may well be incorrect. According to the SS forum date I've been contributing to them since 2005. Was "Dreamstime" still a contributor to iStock back then?

Either way, they have spent a long time rejecting images that otherwise sell.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #66 on:** February 12, 2015, 17:06 »

[quote ]
Had a chuckle when considering a glaringly obvious DT failure . . . that they have spent the last 10 years insisting on a mad "similars" policy.
[/quote]

dead yet??? what??? it was comatose a long time ago since they rejected anything more than 2 similars and got the IV drip pulled off from the veggie-in-coma, when they added fb like.

it also didn't help when serbian came in here to scold everyone who did not like dt . he should come in now to let us know if it is going to be exumed for autopsy

it's a great pity because eric, carmen, all were very good 2 us. only somewhere along the way, they f**ked-up

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #67 on:** February 12, 2015, 18:11 »

Quote from: alistaircotton on February 12, 2015, 13:46

According to the SS forum date I've been contributing to them since 2005. Was "Dreamstime" still a contributor to iStock back then?

I joined DT at the end of October 2004; the domain registration says it began June 2000 (istockphoto was registered January 2000). This article (in Spanish but Google translate helps) says the web design company Archiweb was around from 2000

http://mymicrostock.net/serban-enache-ceo-de-dreamstime-nos-habla-sobre-filosofia-de-una-de-las-mejores-agencias-microstock/

Phadrea · « **Reply #68 on:** March 02, 2015, 03:26 »

Dying ? The funeral was a long time ago.

skyfish · « **Reply #69 on:** March 02, 2015, 03:51 »

No they are not dying. One said: every desperate situation has at least two exits.
Which they will take - will see soon , the changes are active there.

Stockmaan · « **Reply #70 on:** March 02, 2015, 04:29 »

DT only 3% income (and still fall down) of all Big 4. If the site will finally die, I will not be too affected. Their latest move (Google "cooperation"), was an desperate attempt I think.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #71 on:** March 02, 2015, 05:00 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on February 12, 2015, 18:11

Quote from: alistaircotton on February 12, 2015, 13:46
According to the SS forum date I've been contributing to them since 2005. Was "Dreamstime" still a contributor to iStock back then?

I joined DT at the end of October 2004; the domain registration says it began June 2000 (istockphoto was registered January 2000). This article (in Spanish but Google translate helps) says the web design company Archiweb was around from 2000

http://mymicrostock.net/serban-enache-ceo-de-dreamstime-nos-habla-sobre-filosofia-de-una-de-las-mejores-agencias-microstock/

I joined in June 2004, just after they opened the site for contributions. The first file I uploaded is number 5305 on June 8 that year. By October, the file numbers were up around 30,000 and they had around 20,000 images online. I think iStock allowed Serban to have his site and continue as an iStock contributor for a few months after he announced (on iStock's message board) that he was taking contributions. By November 2004, when Shutterstock opened its doors, they weren't allowing that sort of thing and more.

Oh, and it's not dying. It may not be doing terribly well for individual contributors but it will be generating a lot of cash as a company.

Ariene · « **Reply #72 on:** March 02, 2015, 10:07 »

Dreamstime - I think the name says everything

wordplanet · « **Reply #73 on:** March 02, 2015, 13:42 »

Got a bunch of credit sales in February and they were more than double what I earned on SS - DT is usually not very consistent for me but they've been trending up since late last year for me. Not happy with the google deal - they seem to have nabbed a lot of my images in Jan and Feb assuming they're the $2 subs - even without those sales google sales though (which I'm guessing are a one-time deal?), DT would still beat out SS this month by a mile. DT has beat SS before but never by more that $5-10, this time the difference is huge.

While I'm glad that DT is trending up, I'm concerned that SS earnings are starting to swing widely from one month to the next, where I used to be able to count on a a certain minimum there, last month was my worst month there in years - not just because it was mostly subs, but the number of DLs dropped drastically too. I had almost as many DLs on DT as I did on SS last month and that has never happened before.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #74 on:** March 02, 2015, 14:30 »

I agree SS is on the downswing. Feb was my worst month there since years ago, but DT still is about half SS earnings.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Do you believe that DT is dying? (Read 75094 times)

pancaketom

angelawaye

PixelBytes

Uncle Pete

No Free Lunch

littleny

melastmohican

Pixart

PixelBytes

Cesar

Mantis

sgoodwin4813

CommuniCat

Mantis

Pixart

CommuniCat

etudiante_rapide

Jo Ann Snover

Phadrea

skyfish

Stockmaan

BaldricksTrousers

Ariene

wordplanet

PixelBytes

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors