Author Topic: August earnings (Read 7983 times)

PixelsAway · « **Reply #50 on:** September 02, 2011, 11:45 »

BME: +20% in reference to July, +68% in ref to Aug'2010

IS 40% (+28%) ( ) - growth from July'11
SS 27% (+11%)
DT 14% (+46%)
FT 4% ( +6%)
others 15% ( =)

Anita Potter · « **Reply #51 on:** September 02, 2011, 13:42 »

What program do you guys make your graphs with? I've got Excel but don't think they have the capability to make nice graphs just flat ones. Then again I haven't really messed with that function too much either.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #52 on:** September 02, 2011, 14:23 »

Excel will do 3d graphs etc the graphs look pretty much like excel to me

leaf · « **Reply #53 on:** September 02, 2011, 14:30 »

Quote from: Anita Potter on September 02, 2011, 13:42

What program do you guys make your graphs with? I've got Excel but don't think they have the capability to make nice graphs just flat ones. Then again I haven't really messed with that function too much either.

yeah, mine were excel 2007

oboy · « **Reply #54 on:** September 02, 2011, 15:34 »

I used MS Excel 2010.

holgs · « **Reply #55 on:** September 02, 2011, 16:07 »

Well this and other threads are a little bit more encouraging than last month. Heres hoping that summer is finally over!

Overall $$ was slightly ahead of July, and about double Aug '10, but seeing as that was changeover month, the stat is still pretty meaningless. About 10% off my BME without factoring in PP and Getty earnings. I increased my portfolio by over 400 images this month so its not a great result, but maybe the effort will be rewarded in coming months.

My stats are showed a really bad patch between the afternoon of the 17th to the 23rd - its almost like there was a 6 day weekend.

Freedom · « **Reply #56 on:** September 02, 2011, 16:54 »

Quote from: holgs on September 02, 2011, 16:07

Overall $$ was slightly ahead of July, and about double Aug '10, but seeing as that was changeover month, the stat is still pretty meaningless. About 10% off my BME without factoring in PP and Getty earnings. I increased my portfolio by over 400 images this month so its not a great result, but maybe the effort will be rewarded in coming months.

That's the point. My August was worse than June and July but not much. However, it is worrisome that the new images have not boosted the overall income.

holgs · « **Reply #57 on:** September 02, 2011, 16:56 »

Quote from: Freedom on September 02, 2011, 16:54

Quote from: holgs on September 02, 2011, 16:07
Overall $$ was slightly ahead of July, and about double Aug '10, but seeing as that was changeover month, the stat is still pretty meaningless. About 10% off my BME without factoring in PP and Getty earnings. I increased my portfolio by over 400 images this month so its not a great result, but maybe the effort will be rewarded in coming months.

That's the point. My August was worse than June and July but not much. However, it is worrisome that the new images have not boosted the overall income.

Lately I've noticed that it takes a little bit longer for images to become properly indexed and start getting sales. The search does however heavily favour older files which is a problem.

Slovenian · « **Reply #58 on:** September 02, 2011, 17:54 »

Quote from: holgs on September 02, 2011, 16:07

I increased my portfolio by over 400 images this month

How do you manage that if you don't mind my asking? I can't manage that in a year (but I don't shoot much anyway). How many times a week do you shoot, what are your subjects and do you do a lot of similars?

ShadySue · « **Reply #59 on:** September 02, 2011, 18:55 »

Quote from: Slovenian on September 02, 2011, 17:54

Quote from: holgs on September 02, 2011, 16:07
I increased my portfolio by over 400 images this month

How do you manage that if you don't mind my asking? I can't manage that in a year (but I don't shoot much anyway). How many times a week do you shoot, what are your subjects and do you do a lot of similars?

Try looking at his port?

Slovenian · « **Reply #60 on:** September 03, 2011, 03:38 »

Yeah it works, he has the same username. As I thought, ton of editorial photos, besides isolations on white it couldn't be anything else

alexmk · « **Reply #61 on:** September 03, 2011, 09:13 »

Here are my stats. As you can see 60% of my microstock earnings come from iStock.

Slovenian · « **Reply #62 on:** September 03, 2011, 14:40 »

I can't see sheat

lagereek · « **Reply #63 on:** September 05, 2011, 04:57 »

Like Lisa, I was seriously considering exclusivity a year and half back. I would have done it, hadnt it been for the heavy Getty involvment, its an edgy company, dont ever know where youve got them.

Getty, with its present direction can ofcourse grow very, very strong. They are also dedicating massive revenue towards AD-campaigns, etc. Its really a matter of how long the other agencies can hold out and survive and if they cant? well thats another horror scenario, especially for us independants.

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #64 on:** September 05, 2011, 05:15 »

Quote from: lagereek on September 05, 2011, 04:57

Its really a matter of how long the other agencies can hold out and survive and if they cant? well thats another horror scenario, especially for us independants.

that horror scenario must be considered unfortunately, but otoh one of the few major agencies (i.e. shutterstock) which are not following Getty in the bottom race is the one which is doing better

so I have hopes in another scenario: the more greedy agencies destroying themselves while other continue undisturbed and stronger than before; in this alternative scenario, it's Getty (and Fotolia) that must hold out in being unfair, against all bad mouthing from contributors and buyers

who will surrender first?

gostwyck · « **Reply #65 on:** September 05, 2011, 07:36 »

Quote from: lagereek on September 05, 2011, 04:57

Getty, with its present direction can ofcourse grow very, very strong. They are also dedicating massive revenue towards AD-campaigns, etc. Its really a matter of how long the other agencies can hold out and survive and if they cant? well thats another horror scenario, especially for us independants.

I don't think Getty, 'with it's present direction', is doing particularly well at all. It's traditional RM market has been shrinking rapidly for years, thanks to microstock. The news/sports division is apparently healthy (according to Klein) but that's a world away from what we do. With newspapers and magazines becoming less popular all over the world I find it difficult to see how they are going to grow that revenue stream. With Istock they held the dominant position in microstock but it is starting to look as if they may have over-cooked that particular goose. They also appear to have had little success in challenging SS in the subscription market despite having been marketing TS heavily for about a year. Where's the good news?

Getty's current policy of moving content 'upstream and downstream' between their various outlets strikes me as muddled thinking. They no longer really understand the market that they are selling into and are simply trying to 'cover all bases' and hope for the best. They don't really understand the intrinsic value of what they are selling, evidenced by the multiple of price-points that similar or even the same images are available for. It could hardly be in greater contrast to Shutterstock who do seem to know exactly what they are doing (the KISS principle) and accordingly are reaping the rewards.

H&F bought Getty for $2.4B with the aim of selling on at a profit in 3-5 years. Getty's shareholders at the time were very happy to take the money and run after having seen revenues plunge for several years. Looks to me that they probably made the right choice.

lagereek · « **Reply #66 on:** September 05, 2011, 08:11 »

Fair enough, but isnt what youre saying, yet again pretty much wishful thinking? after all Getty has survived many, many crizis, many ups and downs, they have been counted out a number of times and , yet, they come back.
I dont think they will ever be able to compete with SS, not on subs anyway, hope not but there are several other avenues they can go.

I just shot a really high-end glossy catalouge for the Volvo-best match-Boxer tractors in Sweden, alongside with this they needed about 20 shots of general farming scenery shots, you know fields, forest, sunsets, etc. The AD-agency bought all these RM, for 800 bucks a shot.
There is still a big market for RM, RF, etc and this is one field which is totally dominated by Getty. Corbis, Alamy?, are simply nowhere to be seen nowdays? gone for vacations or something.

Yiu are making it seem too cut and dry, pointing at shareholders, figures, financials, etc. hoping they will remain low. Nothing points at that, exept some reports.

gostwyck · « **Reply #67 on:** September 05, 2011, 10:15 »

I thought that Getty historically had been a resounding success story? At least up until the advent of microstock anyway. That success was largely built by achieving such dominance of the market (through acquisitions of competitors, etc) that they were able to set the 'market price' of images and also effectively control the supply of new images.

The emergence of digital photography and microstock has acted like a wrecking ball on the foundations of Getty's business. They can no longer control either the market price or the supply of new images. Rather than accepting the 'new world' and adapting to it they seem to be trying to drag Istock with them into their old way of doing things (and that includes the way they have treated their contributors). I can't see that working for them.

Obviously there will always be a place for RM and higher-priced images but the prices will have to reflect the genuine excellence, cost of production or uniqueness of the images.

lisafx · « **Reply #68 on:** September 05, 2011, 12:50 »

Quote from: gostwyck on September 05, 2011, 10:15

Rather than accepting the 'new world' and adapting to it they seem to be trying to drag Istock with them into their old way of doing things (and that includes the way they have treated their contributors). I can't see that working for them.

I tend to agree. Everything Getty has done with Istock in the past couple of years all points to trying to cram the square peg of microstock into the round hole of traditional stock. It doesn't appear to be working for them.

On the up side, it represents a terrific opportunity for the other, better run sites.

lagereek · « **Reply #69 on:** September 05, 2011, 12:53 »

Quote from: lisafx on September 05, 2011, 12:50

Quote from: gostwyck on September 05, 2011, 10:15
Rather than accepting the 'new world' and adapting to it they seem to be trying to drag Istock with them into their old way of doing things (and that includes the way they have treated their contributors). I can't see that working for them.

I tend to agree. Everything Getty has done with Istock in the past couple of years all points to trying to cram the square peg of microstock into the round hole of traditional stock. It doesn't appear to be working for them.

On the up side, it represents a terrific opportunity for the other, better run sites.

Yep! but only for the well organized sites and they are not many, unfortunately.

Slovenian · « **Reply #70 on:** September 05, 2011, 14:52 »

Quote from: lagereek on September 05, 2011, 12:53

Quote from: lisafx on September 05, 2011, 12:50
Quote from: gostwyck on September 05, 2011, 10:15
Rather than accepting the 'new world' and adapting to it they seem to be trying to drag Istock with them into their old way of doing things (and that includes the way they have treated their contributors). I can't see that working for them.

I tend to agree. Everything Getty has done with Istock in the past couple of years all points to trying to cram the square peg of microstock into the round hole of traditional stock. It doesn't appear to be working for them.

On the up side, it represents a terrific opportunity for the other, better run sites.

Yep! but only for the well organized sites and they are not many, unfortunately.

I can't think of any besides SS. Can anybody else? A site that is not just well organized and run, but also has enough traffic. I really wish there would be an agency so good that I'd seriously think about exclusivity. Not having to go through all that hassle with multiple sites. At least one of them is screwing things up at any given time. Wether it's the cuts, bugs, crazy rejections, loss of traffic or something else...

lagereek · « **Reply #71 on:** September 05, 2011, 15:16 »

Quote from: Slovenian on September 05, 2011, 14:52

Quote from: lagereek on September 05, 2011, 12:53
Quote from: lisafx on September 05, 2011, 12:50
Quote from: gostwyck on September 05, 2011, 10:15
Rather than accepting the 'new world' and adapting to it they seem to be trying to drag Istock with them into their old way of doing things (and that includes the way they have treated their contributors). I can't see that working for them.

I tend to agree. Everything Getty has done with Istock in the past couple of years all points to trying to cram the square peg of microstock into the round hole of traditional stock. It doesn't appear to be working for them.

On the up side, it represents a terrific opportunity for the other, better run sites.

Yep! but only for the well organized sites and they are not many, unfortunately.

I can't think of any besides SS. Can anybody else? A site that is not just well organized and run, but also has enough traffic. I really wish there would be an agency so good that I'd seriously think about exclusivity. Not having to go through all that hassle with multiple sites. At least one of them is screwing things up at any given time. Wether it's the cuts, bugs, crazy rejections, loss of traffic or something else...

Exactly! and thats the problem, sooner or later they get something into their heads about re-arranging the best match or something else and with proven devastaing effects.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #72 on:** September 05, 2011, 20:07 »

Quote from: Slovenian on September 03, 2011, 03:38

Yeah it works, he has the same username. As I thought, ton of editorial photos, besides isolations on white it couldn't be anything else

TONS of great photography around the globe

RacePhoto · « **Reply #73 on:** September 05, 2011, 20:29 »

Quote from: Anita Potter on September 02, 2011, 13:42

What program do you guys make your graphs with? I've got Excel but don't think they have the capability to make nice graphs just flat ones. Then again I haven't really messed with that function too much either.

Open Office - FREE

http://www.ehow.com/how_8332932_make-graph-openoffice-calc.html

Someone here probably sold the image they are using to illustrate the tips?

Catastrophe · « **Reply #74 on:** September 06, 2011, 17:12 »

for me, August was just about even with July, but both were up significantly from the last few months. While most of my sites continue on upward trends, Istock continues to plummet, although Photo+ may have temporarily slowed that.

Overall, I'm making half as much off of twice the portfolio from 2-3 years ago. The salad days of MS seem to be over, and I pretty much missed the boat, seeing as I still only have ~400 images on my largest site

/

When it comes to going exclusive, I think that it's more about managing risk than supposedly making more money. The advantage to going exclusive is that you don't have to do all that work uploading - so if one has already done the work of uploading thousands of images to multiple sites, going excl. seems like a step backwards. Plus, you would have nearly as much work ahead of you taking down files, as many sites don't make it as easy as it should be.