Author Topic: Top 5 Reasons My iStock Portfolio Is Tanking (Read 9974 times)

iStop · « **on:** May 10, 2014, 00:18 »

Following is in my opinion a summary of the top 5 reason why sales on iStock are tanking for Exclusives.

I am curious if other people feel the main reasons are the same or different?

My list goes in order, starting with what I think is the top reason:

1 - No Upload Limits For Indies & Lower Quality Acceptance Criteria Than Before
2 - Overall Loss Of iStock Buyers
3 - Subs Pricing Available On All Photos
4 - High Pricing On All Exclusive Content
5 - No Views Or Sales On New Uploads

Also, the search results probably don't help either. The fact that the best match is always changing, and often not for the better, isn't good. Plus, Exclusives no longer being able to choose which collection their content goes into is a setback too.

gclk · « **Reply #1 on:** May 10, 2014, 05:27 »

I reckon all your points make sense, but 2 is the most worrying for me.

iStock have spent far too long now taking money out of the business and failing to put enough back in. Obviously I don't know the figures, but the fact that top advertising positions in printed media which used to be occupied by iStock are now taken by iStock's competitors demonstrates the problem quite well.

Because of the unwillingness to invest in the future of the company, customers coming to iStock have to put up with a slow and complex website which is riddled with bugs. More problems continue to be introduced faster than old issues get fixed.

As contributors have been pointing out for several years now, buyers looking for their ideal image have to make do with images which are minuscule by today's standards. Image sizes that were acceptable for viewing on screens in 2004 are simply too small for the resolution people work with in 2014. It's an area where company involved in licensing images should be ahead of the curve, not a decade behind it.

With this 100% royalty day, maybe there's a small hope that iStock have woken up to the pit they're digging themselves into, but they're going to have to do a lot of work to get out of it.

JKB · « **Reply #2 on:** May 10, 2014, 06:52 »

Quote from: gclk on May 10, 2014, 05:27

I reckon all your points make sense, but 2 is the most worrying for me.

I agree, the overall loss of customers is extremely worrying. And losing customers is a lot easier than winning them back.

StanRohrer · « **Reply #3 on:** May 10, 2014, 07:20 »

Getty took over iStock to increase their stock photo portfolio. In the process they lost focus on iStock Buyers, iStock Operations, and iStock Contributors. The iStock golden goose has slowed down production of the golden eggs. Now, if they are actually waking up (I don't hold my breath), 100% day is one very small token of reckoning that it takes contributors as a segment of the working 3 part equation. However, even if the contributor segment was fixed to 100%, the iStock Operations and iStock Buyers problems will still unbalance the working equation.

iStop, I think your list are certainly components - but of a bigger systemic problem with the business.

iStop · « **Reply #4 on:** May 10, 2014, 08:14 »

Thank you all for your feedback.

Stan, I agree, mismanagement is a big issue as you noted which is what led them to making many bad decisions that then led to my list of problems.

But the buyer loss thing must really be hitting them hard. If it wasn't then they wouldn't be trying to emulate Shutterstock so hard all of a sudden by pushing out the new subs program so heavily.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #5 on:** May 10, 2014, 08:23 »

Quote from: iStop on May 10, 2014, 00:18

1 - No Upload Limits For Indies & Lower Quality Acceptance Criteria Than Before
2 - Overall Loss Of iStock Buyers
3 - Subs Pricing Available On All Photos
4 - High Pricing On All Exclusive Content
5 - No Views Or Sales On New Uploads

Number 5 is not a reason IMHO but the result.

The other four are all valid. Add to that the competition (mainly Shutterstock) is having a much better product - I mainly mean: All images at the same price, no complicated price levels; technical stability; reliable search results biased only on customer experience.

I mean, last year iStock has decided to slash all non-ex prices to an easy 1,2,3 credit pricing. Then they removed the XS completely. Now they moved up prices from M up again. It's 2, 4, 5 etc. now. More expensive than the competition but also totally odd for the buyer to understand all this.

And then there is a the subscription offer: The charm of a subscription is the easiness to use it. One payment, no further considerations. Not at iStock. They managed to complicate even the simple stuff again: For some images you need a different subscription, some images you can't get all with a subscription...

To me it looks they totally fail to learn from both their own mistakes and the competition.

kayann · « **Reply #6 on:** May 10, 2014, 08:45 »

OMG istock's various pricing schemes of the last few years will make your eyes go blank. So true Michael

iStop · « **Reply #7 on:** May 10, 2014, 08:47 »

Thank you. In a way I agree that #5 is a result of all the other mistakes, including and mainly the loss of buyers, but not completely. I'll explain.

When they changed the system to only show views of a logged in buyer account it means that views on new content doesn't add up to many views anymore. Lower registered views in turn effects best match placement, which in turn effects sales on new content. So they are basically causing new uploads to sell less than before with their new registered views system. Then no views and immediately the new content falls into the abyss.

What also has reduced views are the larger mouse over thumbnails they instituted. The new thumbnails are much better, but it also results in fewer buyer's needing to click to see a good image thumbnail. So no need to click and no registered view.

This basically in itself destroyed the long standing benefit of shoot, upload, repeat.

ShadySue · « **Reply #8 on:** May 10, 2014, 08:54 »

I've been saying for years: there is no joined-up stategy.
It's a lot of random changes, often diametrically opposite to the one which went before.
E.g. removing XS size, stopping exclusives from submitting to TS, (if they wanted to) then very shortly afterwards introducing a sub scheme from which no-one could opt out.

For exclusives, breaking the promise that our work would never be hidden from buyers means that no matter what we produce, in quality or quantity, a simple slider setting guarantees it won't even be considered (older work may be in the Main collection, I'm talking about incentive to produce new work).
That's even worse than 'arrange by price, lowest to highest' which I often use when shopping online, where I can decide if the cheapest item will do, or if it's worth it to me to pay more for something I prefer.

tickstock · « **Reply #9 on:** May 10, 2014, 08:57 »

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** May 10, 2014, 09:03 »

Quote from: iStop on May 10, 2014, 08:47

When they changed the system to only show views of a logged in buyer account it means that views on new content doesn't add up to many views anymore. Lower registered views in turn effects best match placement, which in turn effects sales on new content. So they are basically causing new uploads to sell less than before with their new registered views system. Then no views and immediately the new content falls into the abyss.

Also, views from someone in your friends list counts as a view, even if they have no buyer account.
Some people think the system works inthe opposite way to what you suggest, in that views without sales demote new files position, so they have been divesting themselves of 'friends'.

Whatever, there is no doubt that for a long time, new files have been sinking fast, and if they happen to get a sale, they sink even faster, below older files with 0 dls. They only bob up again (I hear!) if they get over either 9 or 10 dls.
As the curse of the download has been happening since sometime in 2010, and the new files sinking has been happening since Sept/Oct 2012, and they seem to have no intention of changing things, it must be policy (?maybe to get a lot of exclusive files with 0 dls which they can demote to Main as they 'didn't sell'?).

In addition, many new files are shockingly badly keyworded, and the IQ is unbelievable. When I started, I used to read the critique forum a lot and so many people were getting image rejections for out of focus that I couldn't see that I went to have my eyes tested (it wasn't my eyes, apparently!). Now some files are accepted that I can see are way out of focus on the thum (and checked with other people in case it was my eyes!).

ShadySue · « **Reply #11 on:** May 10, 2014, 09:05 »

Quote from: tickstock on May 10, 2014, 08:57

You can ask to have your images moved to the Main collection.

Indeed, I took out a CR ticket on 2nd April linking to a lightbox for that very purpose. It hasn't yet fallen off the open ticket list.

But that is hardly the point.
Where was the sense in making such a huge disparity between the prices? No-one could argue that all exclusive work is better than all indie work. And some 'only from iStock' work is available all over the place, so why pay more?
When we made the images, it was not in any expectation that our work would be undercut on the very site some of us chose to be exclusive to.

Although they invited lightboxes to be demoted, they also said they didn't need to demote the images we chose and could choose others if they wanted to. So all a bit moot.

Anyway, that reminds me of another volte face, firstly them telling us to max out our S+ nominations, then deciding to auto-promote certain files for no obvious reason, then just as suddenly preventing us from nominating files as S+ and auto-demoting certain files back to S, sometimes with good reason, sometimes files which were selling as S+. There is just no rhyme nor reason to most of their moves in the last 3.5 years.

pixel8 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 10, 2014, 10:11 »

Go to Google Trends and type in IS, SS, and Getty and see the results. SS has surpassed both. Both Getty and IS are trending down while SS is trending upward.

heywoody · « **Reply #13 on:** May 10, 2014, 10:17 »

#1 is 2 separate reasons, #2 and #5 are outcomes. Root cause is lack of vision coupled with unfounded arrogance, leading to really bad "initiatives".

iStop · « **Reply #14 on:** May 10, 2014, 10:29 »

Really the biggest problem is that shoot, upload, repeat really doesn't do anything anymore and is in a way the biggest problem now. It used to be that the best way to fix a declining portfolio was to add more content. No there seems to be no way to stop the declining curve.

gostwyck · « **Reply #15 on:** May 10, 2014, 10:42 »

I'd say the main reason is that IS are run by corporate managers, who are driven by short-term targets rather than the long-term health of the business. In contrast their competitors are driven by entrepreneurs.

Even if the IS managers actually knew how to build the business, which I doubt, they wouldn't have the authority to do so.

All the other issues stem directly from the corporate structure and lack of entrepreneurial spirit.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #16 on:** May 10, 2014, 11:46 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 10, 2014, 10:42

I'd say the main reason is that IS are run by corporate managers, who are driven by short-term targets rather than the long-term health of the business. In contrast their competitors are driven by entrepreneurs...

And the top of the pile - first Hellman & Friedman and now the Carlyle Group. I've made no secret of how much I despise private equity firms - they are parasites that suck money out of businesses and leave them worse off than when they arrived. I have been told by several people who have been in businesses owned by them that the sole focus for them is the financials in the short terms they plan to be around. So anything that costs money is nixed unless it can return a profit in the very near future.

Getty has been stomping all over the stock business for a while - before they were gobbled up - but their predations have been overtaken by the massive debt and the marching orders of their private equity owners.

The irony of the small business day being the 100% royalty day is that one of the themes of changing iStock was to drive away the small design businesses that had built iStock and go for the deep pockets of larger companies. Remember all those threads mocking designers who complained that prices had skyrocketed when existing files got moved to high price collections?

asiseeit · « **Reply #17 on:** May 10, 2014, 12:39 »

Quote from: pixel8 on May 10, 2014, 10:11

Go to Google Trends and type in IS, SS, and Getty and see the results. SS has surpassed both. Both Getty and IS are trending down while SS is trending upward.

uh... SS is trending down as well. I think google trends means nothing in this context btw, just thought I'd take a look.
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=shutterstock.com

ShadySue · « **Reply #18 on:** May 10, 2014, 15:30 »

Is this comparison chart, starting before 2005, likely to be accurate?
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=shutterstock.com%2C%20istockphoto&cmpt=q

elvinstar · « **Reply #19 on:** May 10, 2014, 16:17 »

One thing about Google Trends is that it show how often people search for a site, not how often they use it. Maybe people are searching for SS (and possibly IS) less is that they've already found them and are happy with what they've found.

Goofy · « **Reply #20 on:** May 10, 2014, 16:25 »

There is a 6th reason for me- I suck big time compared to the majority of the pro's already in the game!

DC · « **Reply #21 on:** May 10, 2014, 16:32 »

Quote from: ShadySue on May 10, 2014, 15:30

Is this comparison chart, starting before 2005, likely to be accurate?
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=shutterstock.com%2C%20istockphoto&cmpt=q

If you do shutterstock instead of shutterstock.com then it is much higher. And if you use .com for both them then shutterstock is still higher but both are trending down.

ShadySue · « **Reply #22 on:** May 10, 2014, 16:39 »

Oh you're right.
Without .com, there is a clear crossover.
Apparently coinciding exactly with the announcement of RCs at iS.

That was the beginning of contributor-shafting at iS, but the downturn ...

Sunnygirl · « **Reply #23 on:** May 11, 2014, 03:58 »

I'm not into much of conspiracy stuff, but isn't it strange to have a month graph that looks almost exactly the same as the one of the previous year? Same "strange and sudden" highs, same lows. Almost like copy&paste with only few days apart. I've upped my portfolio for 30% and new images are selling quite nicely... but, the ones that used to sell stopped when new images started selling. So I'm more or less on the same income level, slightly higher. Pure coincidence, luck or something else?

gillian vann · « **Reply #24 on:** May 11, 2014, 05:03 »

I don't understand how being exclusive works so well anymore. sure you may be placed higher in the search, but thanks to the price sliders buyers can simply remove your stuff and still have cheap and high quality offerings.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Top 5 Reasons My iStock Portfolio Is Tanking (Read 9974 times)

iStop

gclk

JKB

StanRohrer

iStop

MichaelJayFoto

kayann

iStop

ShadySue

tickstock

ShadySue

ShadySue

pixel8

heywoody

iStop

gostwyck

Jo Ann Snover

asiseeit

ShadySue

elvinstar

Goofy

DC

ShadySue

Sunnygirl

gillian vann

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors