Author Topic: How Much Has Your Income Dropped On iStock Since The Peak In 2012? - Poll! (Read 34817 times)

X9D7CE84A2B5Y · « **on:** June 04, 2016, 03:38 »

Vote in the above Poll. Where do you fall in?

X9D7CE84A2B5Y · « **Reply #1 on:** June 04, 2016, 11:49 »

Thank you all for voting so far. Please vote if you are presently an iStock contributor. The more votes we have the better we may be able to see a pattern and understand which people have been effected/hurt the most.

X9D7CE84A2B5Y · « **Reply #2 on:** June 04, 2016, 11:53 »

By the way, I should have added the basis for calculating your drop. In my case I took my BME, which was actually March 2012 and compared it to what my checkout payment amount will be later this month for May.

iFlop · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2016, 12:22 »

Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5YU6G1 on June 04, 2016, 11:49

Thank you all for voting so far. Please vote if you are presently an iStock contributor. The more votes we have the better we may be able to see a pattern and understand which people have been effected/hurt the most.

Great idea. Perhaps it can be of help to Exclusives to give them an idea if being indy (with pictures prices being 1/3 the price for buyers) means you sell and make more. If enough people vote it could give people an indication if they should give up the crown. If they can earn more on iStock than they are now as an indy, and put up their files on all the other sites, then they could end up making more in the long run.

The monthly iStock exclusive polling results on the right might not be a good enough matrix to gauge things by if you get more istock exclusive contributors voting on that poll than from the other sites. But this poll is good because it measures the results of just iStock contributors and gives breakdowns of how much their income has dropped since 2012.

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** June 04, 2016, 13:19 »

Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5YU6G1 on June 04, 2016, 11:53

By the way, I should have added the basis for calculating your drop. In my case I took my BME, which was actually March 2012 and compared it to what my checkout payment amount will be later this month for May.

Oh, if I compared my BME to any month this year, my drop would be much more than I voted. I compared 2015's total to 2012's total.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #5 on:** June 04, 2016, 13:52 »

So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.

X9D7CE84A2B5Y · « **Reply #6 on:** June 04, 2016, 13:58 »

Quote from: ShadySue on June 04, 2016, 13:19

Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5YU6G1 on June 04, 2016, 11:53
By the way, I should have added the basis for calculating your drop. In my case I took my BME, which was actually March 2012 and compared it to what my checkout payment amount will be later this month for May.
Oh, if I compared my BME to any month this year, my drop would be much more than I voted. I compared 2015's total to 2012's total.

Very sorry for not clarifying that earlier. I should have laid down the parameters at the onset. Anyway, thank you for voting. Your vote will still help.

X9D7CE84A2B5Y · « **Reply #7 on:** June 04, 2016, 14:05 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 04, 2016, 13:52

So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.

True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.

So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.

The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?

Mantis · « **Reply #8 on:** June 04, 2016, 14:35 »

Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5Y on June 04, 2016, 14:05

Quote from: PixelBytes on June 04, 2016, 13:52
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.

True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.

So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.

The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?

Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.

X9D7CE84A2B5Y · « **Reply #9 on:** June 04, 2016, 15:00 »

Quote from: Mantis on June 04, 2016, 14:35

Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5Y on June 04, 2016, 14:05
Quote from: PixelBytes on June 04, 2016, 13:52
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.

True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.

So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.

The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?

Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.

Good theory thanks. But if Indies are adding video wouldn't exclusives be adding video too to offset their drop in image sales?

Mantis · « **Reply #10 on:** June 04, 2016, 15:27 »

Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5Y on June 04, 2016, 15:00

Quote from: Mantis on June 04, 2016, 14:35
Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5Y on June 04, 2016, 14:05
Quote from: PixelBytes on June 04, 2016, 13:52
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.

True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.

So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.

The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?

Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.

Good theory thanks. But if Indies are adding video wouldn't exclusives be adding video too to offset their drop in image sales?

Certainly feasible, but it's also possible that while exclusives are locked into a specific revenue pipeline, indy's are not. So expanding video to, say, 5-6 new outlets could answer that hypothesis.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #11 on:** June 04, 2016, 15:37 »

Some independents may have just started out.

w7lwi · « **Reply #12 on:** June 04, 2016, 15:52 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on June 04, 2016, 15:37

Some independents may have just started out.

If that were the case, then they wouldn't have any 2012 income to compare against.

X9D7CE84A2B5Y · « **Reply #13 on:** June 04, 2016, 16:02 »

Quote from: Mantis on June 04, 2016, 15:27

Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5Y on June 04, 2016, 15:00
Quote from: Mantis on June 04, 2016, 14:35
Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5Y on June 04, 2016, 14:05
Quote from: PixelBytes on June 04, 2016, 13:52
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.

True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.

So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.

The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?

Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.

Good theory thanks. But if Indies are adding video wouldn't exclusives be adding video too to offset their drop in image sales?

Certainly feasible, but it's also possible that while exclusives are locked into a specific revenue pipeline, indy's are not. So expanding video to, say, 5-6 new outlets could answer that hypothesis.

Sorry, I am not sure I follow your train of thought here. Please let me kindly remind you that we are talking purely about iStock income here for both independents and exclusives from 2012 until now. Not sales of video on other outlets.

Mantis · « **Reply #14 on:** June 04, 2016, 16:17 »

Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5Y on June 04, 2016, 16:02

Quote from: Mantis on June 04, 2016, 15:27
Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5Y on June 04, 2016, 15:00
Quote from: Mantis on June 04, 2016, 14:35
Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5Y on June 04, 2016, 14:05
Quote from: PixelBytes on June 04, 2016, 13:52
So far looks like the extreme drops have hit both indies and exclusives pretty hard.

True, but what is very interesting so far (as of this moment) is that 6 indies have voted to say that they have seen no drop in income at all (which is amazing in itself) whereas not one exclusive has voted to say they have had no drop in income.

So far, every exclusive who has voted has had some sort of drop in income and I think we can assume that exclusives are also more inclined to add new content to the site on a regular basis versus independents who may not upload to iStock as regularly since they are presumably contributing to multiple sites and less focused on iStock itself than exclusives are.

The one thing I can say is that if things were the way they should be for exclusives, then shouldn't those 2 figures actually be in complete reverse?

Some may have started doing video to offset image income declines. So while they may have serious declines in images, they make it up with video. Just a theory.

Good theory thanks. But if Indies are adding video wouldn't exclusives be adding video too to offset their drop in image sales?

Certainly feasible, but it's also possible that while exclusives are locked into a specific revenue pipeline, indy's are not. So expanding video to, say, 5-6 new outlets could answer that hypothesis.

Sorry, I am not sure I follow your train of thought here. Please let me kindly remind you that we are talking purely about iStock income here for both independents and exclusives from 2012 until now. Not sales of video on other outlets.

Ahh, yes, you are correct. Apologies.

asiseeit · « **Reply #15 on:** June 04, 2016, 21:01 »

hmmm. my peak was 2013 so I guess I'm up since 2012. Anyhoo...

NewStocker · « **Reply #16 on:** June 05, 2016, 01:49 »

Quote from: asiseeit on June 04, 2016, 21:01

hmmm. my peak was 2013 so I guess I'm up since 2012. Anyhoo...

Take your BME in 2013 and compare it to your current iStock account balance for May to calculate your percentage of fall.

X9D7CE84A2B5Y · « **Reply #17 on:** June 05, 2016, 02:13 »

Quote from: NewStocker on June 05, 2016, 01:49

Quote from: asiseeit on June 04, 2016, 21:01
hmmm. my peak was 2013 so I guess I'm up since 2012. Anyhoo...

Take your BME in 2013 and compare it to your current iStock account balance for May to calculate your percentage of fall.

Correct.

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** June 05, 2016, 03:42 »

Quote from: NewStocker on June 05, 2016, 01:49

Quote from: asiseeit on June 04, 2016, 21:01
hmmm. my peak was 2013 so I guess I'm up since 2012. Anyhoo...

Take your BME in 2013 and compare it to your current iStock account balance for May to calculate your percentage of fall.

A percentage of people have vastly differing 'best months', so for example mine was formerly (but not in the past two years) November, by miles; so me comparing past November glories with May wouldn't be an accurate picture.
Perhaps best year total - 2015 total is the best way to go, at least for long-term contributors. It would at least have the benefit of averaging out months.

Gannet77 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 05, 2016, 03:44 »

Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5Y on June 04, 2016, 13:58

Quote from: ShadySue on June 04, 2016, 13:19
Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5YU6G1 on June 04, 2016, 11:53
By the way, I should have added the basis for calculating your drop. In my case I took my BME, which was actually March 2012 and compared it to what my checkout payment amount will be later this month for May.
Oh, if I compared my BME to any month this year, my drop would be much more than I voted. I compared 2015's total to 2012's total.

Very sorry for not clarifying that earlier. I should have laid down the parameters at the onset. Anyway, thank you for voting. Your vote will still help.

I did it ShadySue's way too - and actually, I think that makes more sense. I find any individual month on iStock can vary by as much as 100%, so just choosing a particular month doesn't really tell us very much.

Also, by way of comparison, it would be interesting to know how independents have fared overall, not just on iStock - judging from other posts, the whole market for individual contributors has declined over the years, presumably because of the huge increase in numbers of images, so just looking at one agency doesn't give us the full picture.

X9D7CE84A2B5Y · « **Reply #20 on:** June 05, 2016, 04:22 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on June 05, 2016, 03:44

Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5Y on June 04, 2016, 13:58
Quote from: ShadySue on June 04, 2016, 13:19
Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5YU6G1 on June 04, 2016, 11:53
By the way, I should have added the basis for calculating your drop. In my case I took my BME, which was actually March 2012 and compared it to what my checkout payment amount will be later this month for May.
Oh, if I compared my BME to any month this year, my drop would be much more than I voted. I compared 2015's total to 2012's total.

Very sorry for not clarifying that earlier. I should have laid down the parameters at the onset. Anyway, thank you for voting. Your vote will still help.

I did it ShadySue's way too - and actually, I think that makes more sense. I find any individual month on iStock can vary by as much as 100%, so just choosing a particular month doesn't really tell us very much.

Also, by way of comparison, it would be interesting to know how independents have fared overall, not just on iStock - judging from other posts, the whole market for individual contributors has declined over the years, presumably because of the huge increase in numbers of images, so just looking at one agency doesn't give us the full picture.

Yes, you can use Sue's way to compare. I think whatever method we use we will still get a fairly good picture of things since the poll just covers broad ranges and not exact percentages of drops. But it is giving us a good picture of things so far and showing some useful patterns.

I agree, a poll on independents covering their drops on all agencies might be good too. You can start a similar one in the Big 4 message board. I would think the drops though on Shutterstock, Fotolia, and Dreamstime would be most relevant, but it seems Dreamstime has fallen so much recently according to the site polls that is barely even middle tier any longer. Shutterstock would of course be the most relevant and all contributors on there are indy anyway.

X9D7CE84A2B5Y · « **Reply #21 on:** June 05, 2016, 04:26 »

The reason I said though from your BME in 2012 (or 2013) against last month is because I think we will see the most dramatic falls using that kind of comparison. At one time, although May wasn't my BME, May always used to be a very strong month for me. And this past May was my WM (Worst May and Worst Month) in many years, as it was also for another long term iStock contributor I know personally.

Aleutie · « **Reply #22 on:** June 05, 2016, 07:22 »

My overall earnings increased, but as a percentage of income from other stocks they slightly dropped. So, I would say they were fairly stable. I am indie, obviously.

Mantis · « **Reply #23 on:** June 05, 2016, 08:36 »

Quote from: Gannet77 on June 05, 2016, 03:44

Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5Y on June 04, 2016, 13:58
Quote from: ShadySue on June 04, 2016, 13:19
Quote from: X9D7CE84A2B5YU6G1 on June 04, 2016, 11:53
By the way, I should have added the basis for calculating your drop. In my case I took my BME, which was actually March 2012 and compared it to what my checkout payment amount will be later this month for May.
Oh, if I compared my BME to any month this year, my drop would be much more than I voted. I compared 2015's total to 2012's total.

Very sorry for not clarifying that earlier. I should have laid down the parameters at the onset. Anyway, thank you for voting. Your vote will still help.

I did it ShadySue's way too - and actually, I think that makes more sense. I find any individual month on iStock can vary by as much as 100%, so just choosing a particular month doesn't really tell us very much.

Also, by way of comparison, it would be interesting to know how independents have fared overall, not just on iStock - judging from other posts, the whole market for individual contributors has declined over the years, presumably because of the huge increase in numbers of images, so just looking at one agency doesn't give us the full picture.

This is accurate for me. Last month I made around $600 on IS but the prior month was $340.

pixmicro · « **Reply #24 on:** June 05, 2016, 12:31 »

20% people for the item 'My income hasn't dropped at all and I am an indepdendent' ??...

Pretty hard to believe... I seriously wonder where these istock independent are coming from...
Can one voter with one IP vote multiple times ? Could they be trolls ?...

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

How Much Has Your Income Dropped On iStock Since The Peak In 2012?

Author Topic: How Much Has Your Income Dropped On iStock Since The Peak In 2012? - Poll! (Read 34817 times)

X9D7CE84A2B5Y

X9D7CE84A2B5Y

X9D7CE84A2B5Y

iFlop

ShadySue

PixelBytes

X9D7CE84A2B5Y

X9D7CE84A2B5Y

Mantis

X9D7CE84A2B5Y

Mantis

Justanotherphotographer

w7lwi

X9D7CE84A2B5Y

Mantis

asiseeit

NewStocker

X9D7CE84A2B5Y

ShadySue

Gannet77

X9D7CE84A2B5Y

X9D7CE84A2B5Y

Aleutie

Mantis

pixmicro

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors