Site Productivity

sharply_done

« on: November 29, 2007, 16:15 »

#link

A prime indicator of how productive a site is the ratio of downloads to uploads. A good site, for me, is one where I can achieve more downloads than uploads (i.e. DLs/ULs > 1.0).

Here are my numbers:
IS: 13.9:1
SS: 8.9
DT: 1.6
FT: 1.0
StockXpert: 0.3
CRE: 0.3
123: 0.2
BigStock: 0.2

IS is by far my most productive site. How do your numbers compare?


« Last Edit: November 29, 2007, 16:20 by sharply_done »	Ignore \| Logged

a.k.a.-tom

Premium Member

« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2007, 16:44 »

#link

I'll work up the numbers but I can tell you right off the top of my head.... I'm way ahead with IS and SS. SS further in front only because I've been with them a year longer than IS. However, at the current pace, IS will soon pass SS. Cool

=tom


	Ignore \| Logged

GeoPappas

« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2007, 16:48 »

#link

Quote from: sharply_done on November 29, 2007, 16:15

A prime indicator of how productive a site is the ratio of downloads to uploads. A good site, for me, is one where I can achieve more downloads than uploads (i.e. DLs/ULs > 1.0).

I would agree with this, except for one thing - subscriptions. Subscriptions tend to increase downloads dramatically (because that is their nature). So I think that comparisons between all of the sites (except for SS) are alright. DT, 123, and StockXpert might be skewed a little (since they offer subscriptions), but the amount of subscription downloads will vary from one person to the next.


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2007, 18:09 »

#link

Shaprly_done,

I don't have those numbers ready, but I will. However, wouldn't the comparison be valid only if you started on all these sites about the same time? I mean, if you've had 1000 images in one site for one year and the same 1000 images in another for just one month, dlds/ulds are not comparable.

Regards,
Adelaide


	Ignore \| Logged

sharply_done

« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2007, 19:48 »

#link

Yes, the comparison is valid only for portfolios of about the same age. With the exception of StockXpert, I've had files on all my sites for about the same length of time.


	Ignore \| Logged

Kngkyle

« Reply #5 on: November 29, 2007, 20:02 »

#link

Shutterstock 8.8
Istockphoto 2.1 - Started here within past month.
Dreamstime 1.4
Fotolia 1.2
StockXpert 0.9
Bigstockphoto 0.4
Crestock 0.2 - Started here within past month.
Luckyoliver 0.05 - Horrible horrible horrible


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #6 on: November 29, 2007, 20:27 »

#link

Mine numbers in the main sites, over one year in them:

site	dlds/ulds	$/ulds	$/dlds
IS:	4.78	2.58	0.53
DT:	2.05	1.51	0.73
StockXpert:	1.31	1.17	0.89
FT:	1.57	1.04	0.66
CanStockPhoto:	0.30
BigStock:	0.64

Later I'll complete and update this table, also adding other sites.

Regards,
Adelaide


	Ignore \| Logged

DanP68

« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2007, 00:32 »

#link

Sharply_done -

You are 100%, absolutely correct.

However "site productivity" is all-inclusive, in that it takes into account the popularity of the website, as well as the quality of the average shopper. It is the latter which interests me. Let me break it down another way, using Views per Download. I have only been in this field for half a year, but it is one of the statistical trends I caught onto immediately. Good microstock sites only require a handful of views before generating a sale. Poorer performers require many more views before a sale is generated.

My feeling is it has to do with the seriousness of the buyers. People who sign in to iStock know what they want, are looking to buy, and they get in and get out. Buyers who sign in to poorer performing sites just do not seem serious to me. Perhaps they are "just looking." Your statistics back this up, and so do mine:

Views per Download of Top 5 Most Popular Files

iStock 5.3 views per download
BigStock 13.9
Dreamstime 14.8
StockXpert 23.9
Lucky Oliver 111.0

* Shutterstock stats not included, as I don't know how to find Views on SS Grin

The list above matches EXACTLY the order of earnings performance for my images at each individual site.

In total terms of downloads per image over this past month:

Shutterstock 1.8
iStock 0.93
Dreamstime 0.19
Stockxpert 0.17
BigStock 0.04
Lucky Oliver 0.00

To correct for Subscriptions here are earnings per image over this past month:

Shutterstock $0.83
iStock $0.58
Dreamstime $0.15
Stockxpert $0.14
BigStock $0.03
Lucky Oliver $0.00


« Last Edit: November 30, 2007, 00:41 by DanP68 »	Logged

hatman12

« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2007, 01:25 »

#link

Good to see you here Dan. Nice statistical contribution.


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #9 on: November 30, 2007, 03:14 »

#link

How do you count monthly views at Dreamstime? Huh

The only way I can think of is to actually add the number of views per photo at the end of each month and subtract from the previous. Quite a mess if you have a largish portfolio?

Am I missing something?

BTW, Dan, totally agree with your approach and analysis methodology.

Lina


	Ignore \| Logged

« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2007, 03:35 »

#link

Ooops, forgot to add something.

I had two EL sales on FL this month and was very pleasantly surprised. Since they are the "cherry on top of the cake", as we say in Greek, I wonder if I should account for them separately in the monthly statistics...

What do you do?

Lina


	Ignore \| Logged

DanP68

« Reply #11 on: November 30, 2007, 06:39 »

#link

Good to see you here too Hatman!

FF -

I should have been more clear. The Views/DL stats (including those at Dreamstime) are all-time statistics. And I stuck to my Top 5 performing images at each site to make the count manageable.

In terms of adding in EL Sales, everyone will have a different opinion. But I say "Yes," and I do add them in when looking at my statistics. Some sites almost seem to specialize in EL sales. According to other posters, Lucky Oliver is apparently one of them. I wouldn't know. I've made all of 30 cents there in 2 months. Undecided


	Logged

« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2007, 07:31 »

#link

Thanks for the clarification, Dan.

I'm still relatively new and have started to keep statistics as of September, hence the dumb questions

Lina


	Ignore \| Logged

fauxware

New Member

« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2007, 08:14 »

#link

I think there is another variable we should consider: the acceptance rate.
If i produce 100 images and one site rejects 60, those 60 will never sell but i have spent time (and money) to produce them, so my earnings should be calculated relative to all 100 images (all the work i have done).
Anyway it is true that the contributor should minimize rejections improving quality and optimizing for every site...
What is your opinion?


	Ignore \| Logged

MicrostockExp

« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2007, 14:31 »

#link

My numbers DL's/UP's

SS 5.46
IS 0.86
DT 0.62
FT 0.41
StockXpert 0.16
123RF 0.15
CT 0.12
BigStock 0.06
CanStockPhoto 0.07

Note that FT is the oldest one


	Ignore \| Logged

louoates

« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2007, 16:22 »

#link

A good check for me is the earnings/per/image per month on the various sites. Just divide your monthly sales on each site by the number of images in your portfolio. It tells you how your images are earning regardless of how many images you have at any site, how long they've been there, or the site's selling scheme.

My Earnings per image for November (29 days) are:

iStock $.23 per image
SS .23
StockXpert .26
Dreamst .17
Fotolia .06
FeaturePix .00
Big Stock .13
Lucky Oliver .06
Snap Vill .00 (only 16 images)


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Site Productivity

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results