Author Topic: January 2012 earnings (Read 6870 times)

Freedom · « **Reply #25 on:** February 01, 2012, 13:33 »

IS exclusive, BME.

lisafx · « **Reply #26 on:** February 01, 2012, 15:01 »

Very disappointing January. $ were actually 1% down on December. That has never happened before. Not sure why the complete failure to rebound from the holidays.

Royalties down 5% from last January. Istock and Fotolia were both down around 35% from last year. Shutterstock and Dreamstime both showed growth, but not enough to compensate from the IS/FT nosedive.

Here's the stats, along with +/- from last year:

ISP   25% (-35%)
SS   28% (+29%)
DT   15% (+9%)
Fot   12% (-36%)
Big   5%
123   3%
Can   2%
Alm   4%
Veer   1%
PD   2%
DP   2%

StockCube · « **Reply #27 on:** February 01, 2012, 15:06 »

An indie BME for me. BME at SS. Very pleased - nearly as much as I was earning as an iS exlusive:

http://stockcube-stockcube.blogspot.com/

traveler1116 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 01, 2012, 15:25 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 01, 2012, 15:01

Very disappointing January. $ were actually 1% down on December. That has never happened before. Not sure why the complete failure to rebound from the holidays.

Royalties down 5% from last January. Istock and Fotolia were both down around 35% from last year. Shutterstock and Dreamstime both showed growth, but not enough to compensate from the IS/FT nosedive.

Here's the stats, along with +/- from last year:

ISP   25% (-35%)
SS   28% (+29%)
DT   15% (+9%)
Fot   12% (-36%)
Big   5%
123   3%
Can   2%
Alm   4%
Veer   1%
PD   2%
DP   2%

I wonder if being exclusive would still be better for you. Probably 30-40% higher credits per sale plus doubling your percentage and a best match boost. An extra small photo+ goes from 2 to 6 credits and 19% goes to 40% so on those sales you would make $2.40 instead of .38 cents or 6x more money if the credit is a dollar and 6 times 25% of total income is a 50% increase. The lowest difference is for XXXL from 23-28 credits which at again 1 dollar a credit and going from 19-40% you would make 4.37 as a non and 11.2 or about 3x more at a minimum. XXXL regular sales are rare for me since a lot of them are E+ and XXXL are just normally rare so I would expect a much higher increase (P+ to E+ XXXL sales would be $5.32 to 20 or about 4x). I guess you've done the math but even without Vetta, Agency, faster inspections, and a best match boost it looks to me like you would be doing as well as an exclusive if not much better when the extra factors are added in.
I just checked my last 20 sales and as a non exclusive at 19% with credits of 1 dollar I would have made $30.40 but as an exclusive making 40% I would make 113.40 so nearly 4x more money for the same sales and you can reasonably expect a few extra sales as an exclusive because of the best match. You will also have more Vetta and Agency than me so again probably even higher search placement and sales.
And on top of that you would get a lot more for your thinkstock sales which haven't been counted into your IS income yet I assume.

gostwyck · « **Reply #29 on:** February 01, 2012, 15:56 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on February 01, 2012, 15:25

Quote from: lisafx on February 01, 2012, 15:01
Very disappointing January. $ were actually 1% down on December. That has never happened before. Not sure why the complete failure to rebound from the holidays.

Royalties down 5% from last January. Istock and Fotolia were both down around 35% from last year. Shutterstock and Dreamstime both showed growth, but not enough to compensate from the IS/FT nosedive.

Here's the stats, along with +/- from last year:

ISP   25% (-35%)
SS   28% (+29%)
DT   15% (+9%)
Fot   12% (-36%)
Big   5%
123   3%
Can   2%
Alm   4%
Veer   1%
PD   2%
DP   2%
I wonder if being exclusive would still be better for you. Probably 30-40% higher credits per sale plus doubling your percentage and a best match boost. An extra small photo+ goes from 2 to 6 credits and 19% goes to 40% so on those sales you would make $2.40 instead of .38 cents or 6x more money if the credit is a dollar and 6 times 25% of total income is a 50% increase. The lowest difference is for XXXL from 23-28 credits which at again 1 dollar a credit and going from 19-40% you would make 4.37 as a non and 11.2 or about 3x more at a minimum. XXXL regular sales are rare for me since a lot of them are E+ and XXXL are just normally rare so I would expect a much higher increase (P+ to E+ XXXL sales would be $5.32 to 20 or about 4x). I guess you've done the math but even without Vetta, Agency, faster inspections, and a best match boost it looks to me like you would be doing as well as an exclusive if not much better when the extra factors are added in.
I just checked my last 20 sales and as a non exclusive at 19% with credits of 1 dollar I would have made $30.40 but as an exclusive making 40% I would make 113.40 so nearly 4x more money for the same sales and you can reasonably expect a few extra sales as an exclusive because of the best match. You will also have more Vetta and Agency than me so again probably even higher search placement and sales.

^^^ Are you serious?

Volunteering to put your entire microstock income into the hands of an agency whose sales (for Lisa) have been dropping off a cliff for several months; who have no known leadership; who have just laid off a good chunk of their staff; who have an unenviable history of reducing commissions to their contributors; who are intending to sell the business on; whose site is totally bug-ridden and which they can't fix; whose site appears vulnerable to fraud; who keep screwing up the displayed statistics/RC's; who keep sending 'reimbursement' emails without good explanation; who frequently change the default sort-order causing wild shifts in income; etc, etc?

Why on earth would you do that?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #30 on:** February 01, 2012, 15:58 »

- 34th month, BME with 1075$ (1600 sales, 815 from SS)
- 80 new pics at SS in the last 3 months (only 11 new in January)
- comparing to last January is almost ridiculous but +230%

this month (previous month) earnings %

SS 40% (42%)
IS 12% (13%)
Zazzle 9% (3%) (BME) (exceptional month with almost 100$ (27 sales), always between 20$-50$)
FT 9% (8%) (BME)
123RF 7% (9%)
DT 5% (6%) (stagnated for 1 year now, 50-70 downloads/earnings)
AYCS 4% (2%)
DP 3% (4%)
PD 2% (4%)
V 2% (1%)
CanStockPhoto 2% (1%)
Other 5% (7%)

traveler1116 · « **Reply #31 on:** February 01, 2012, 16:01 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 01, 2012, 15:56

^^^ Are you serious?

Volunteering to put your entire microstock income into the hands of an agency whose sales (for Lisa) have been dropping off a cliff for several months; who have no known leadership; who have just laid off a good chunk of their staff; who have an unenviable history of reducing commissions to their contributors; who are intending to sell the business on; whose site is totally bug-ridden and which they can't fix; whose site appears vulnerable to fraud; who keep screwing up the displayed statistics/RC's; who keep sending 'reimbursement' emails without good explanation; who frequently change the default sort-order causing wild shifts in income; etc, etc?

Why on earth would you do that?

Yes I'm serious that's why I did the math and I would guess she would have made 10-25% more income for the month (if not much more since non exclusive were hit pretty badly these last two months). Obviously there are other issues besides money that can affect ones choice but those are secondary to how much income I'm making. The point is that if she makes 25% of her income as a nonexclusive then as an exclusive all things being equal she should do about the same, all things aren't equal though and those things favor exclusives so she should do much better.

Pixart · « **Reply #32 on:** February 01, 2012, 16:05 »

-BME at FeaturePics... Almost made $5.

Yes it's okay to laugh. (Or cry if you want).
-BME at 123 - whoohoo Almost $17!!! Yes, it's okay to laugh again.
-SS (30%) and DT (27%) doing very well! Only one month was better at SS, the month I got paid for 4 illegally downloaded EL's in one lump.
-IS, believe it or not, was slightly higher than last January, considering I'm down to under 100 photos that's pretty good.

I've started to track IS by average royalty credits paid to me, anyone else doing this? This month the average was 24.93 cents paid per credit. It usually hovers around 20/credit, but two months last year it dipped below 15/credit.

gostwyck · « **Reply #33 on:** February 01, 2012, 16:06 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on February 01, 2012, 16:01

Yes I'm serious that's why I did the math and I would guess she would have made 10-25% more income for the month (if not much more since non exclusive were hit pretty badly these last two months). Obviously there are other issues besides money that can affect ones choice but those are secondary to how much income I'm making.

Even if you were correct and it did result in '10-25% more income' ... but for how long with the way sales are dropping (and increasing elsewhere)? Three months later you might need to revert back to independent and then you've lost years of work in the sort-order positions, levels, rank, etc. You'd have to be mad to even contemplate it.

disorderly · « **Reply #34 on:** February 01, 2012, 16:12 »

A very good month. Up 20% on December, up 62% on January, 2010. Year over year up 15%.

Continuing to remove nonsellers and slow sellers from iStock and Fotolia. Both continue to decline, although I can't know if deleting stuff nobody likes is keeping them from finding stuff they would buy.

SS 38% (up 2%)
CanStockPhoto 19% (up 171%)
123RF 11% (up 13%)
DT 10% (up 140%)
iS 6% (down 16%)
BigStock 4% (down 11%)
PD 4% (up 21%)
DP 3% (down 245)
Ftl 2% (down 29%)
Cres 1% (up 197%)
Veer 1% (down 56%)
StockXpert 1% (down 4%)

luissantos84 · « **Reply #35 on:** February 01, 2012, 16:15 »

Quote from: Pixart on February 01, 2012, 16:05

I've started to track IS by average royalty credits paid to me, anyone else doing this? This month the average was 24.93 cents paid per credit. It usually hovers around 20/credit, but two months last year it dipped below 15/credit.

21.84 (55 sales)

cthoman · « **Reply #36 on:** February 01, 2012, 16:16 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on February 01, 2012, 16:01

Yes I'm serious that's why I did the math and I would guess she would have made 10-25% more income for the month (if not much more since non exclusive were hit pretty badly these last two months). Obviously there are other issues besides money that can affect ones choice but those are secondary to how much income I'm making. The point is that if she makes 25% of her income as a nonexclusive then as an exclusive all things being equal she should do about the same, all things aren't equal though and those things favor exclusives so she should do much better.

I'm with you. I don't think it's the worst idea either. When you start getting excited about what Photodune is offering, it may be time to reevaluate.

Seriously though, it would be hard to make the leap of faith.

StockCube · « **Reply #37 on:** February 01, 2012, 16:19 »

I thought you were going indie Traveller?

traveler1116 · « **Reply #38 on:** February 01, 2012, 16:23 »

Quote from: StockCube on February 01, 2012, 16:19

I thought you were going indie Traveller?

What gave you that idea?

wut · « **Reply #39 on:** February 01, 2012, 16:24 »

Compared to Jan 11:

SS: +366%
IS: I can only estimate since the PP earnings are not in yet, but my "educated" guess would be 2/3 up
DT: +741% -but I had just half the files up compared to SS and IS in reality it's just over 10% of what SS makes me. The same thing goes for FT.

I haven't been on the other sites back then, but besides 123RF that makes me a bit more than FT and DT, other sites are not worth mentioning, if I combine all of their sales they make less than 7% of what SS brings me (DP, CS, BS, Alamy, PD)

ShadySue · « **Reply #40 on:** February 01, 2012, 16:29 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on February 01, 2012, 16:01

Quote from: gostwyck on February 01, 2012, 15:56
^^^ Are you serious?

Volunteering to put your entire microstock income into the hands of an agency whose sales (for Lisa) have been dropping off a cliff for several months; who have no known leadership; who have just laid off a good chunk of their staff; who have an unenviable history of reducing commissions to their contributors; who are intending to sell the business on; whose site is totally bug-ridden and which they can't fix; whose site appears vulnerable to fraud; who keep screwing up the displayed statistics/RC's; who keep sending 'reimbursement' emails without good explanation; who frequently change the default sort-order causing wild shifts in income; etc, etc?

Why on earth would you do that?
Yes I'm serious that's why I did the math and I would guess she would have made 10-25% more income for the month (if not much more since non exclusive were hit pretty badly these last two months). Obviously there are other issues besides money that can affect ones choice but those are secondary to how much income I'm making. The point is that if she makes 25% of her income as a nonexclusive then as an exclusive all things being equal she should do about the same, all things aren't equal though and those things favor exclusives so she should do much better.

If you read the Jan sales thread on the iStock forums, you'll see that exclusives are all over the place: some reporting BME, some the very opposite.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #41 on:** February 01, 2012, 16:36 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 01, 2012, 16:29

Quote from: traveler1116 on February 01, 2012, 16:01
Quote from: gostwyck on February 01, 2012, 15:56
^^^ Are you serious?

Volunteering to put your entire microstock income into the hands of an agency whose sales (for Lisa) have been dropping off a cliff for several months; who have no known leadership; who have just laid off a good chunk of their staff; who have an unenviable history of reducing commissions to their contributors; who are intending to sell the business on; whose site is totally bug-ridden and which they can't fix; whose site appears vulnerable to fraud; who keep screwing up the displayed statistics/RC's; who keep sending 'reimbursement' emails without good explanation; who frequently change the default sort-order causing wild shifts in income; etc, etc?

Why on earth would you do that?
Yes I'm serious that's why I did the math and I would guess she would have made 10-25% more income for the month (if not much more since non exclusive were hit pretty badly these last two months). Obviously there are other issues besides money that can affect ones choice but those are secondary to how much income I'm making. The point is that if she makes 25% of her income as a nonexclusive then as an exclusive all things being equal she should do about the same, all things aren't equal though and those things favor exclusives so she should do much better.

If you read the Jan sales thread on the iStock forums, you'll see that exclusives are all over the place: some reporting BME, some the very opposite.

That's true. My point with this was that without sales increasing from becoming exclusive (which they undoubtedly would have since the best match favored exclusives over nonexclusives in January) the difference in RCs and % might be enough alone to make becoming exclusive worth it. There would also be a higher % for thinkstock and Vetta and Agency files to add to income. So without an increase in sales I would guess overall income would have been higher. When I went exclusive it was a pretty simple calculation because the only thing that really changed was the %, now the RCs change and that can be as much of a difference in income as the royalty %.

wut · « **Reply #42 on:** February 01, 2012, 16:37 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 01, 2012, 16:29

If you read the Jan sales thread on the iStock forums, you'll see that exclusives are all over the place: some reporting BME, some the very opposite.

And an hour ago SS was 0.09 down and IS 0.36 up...I had a BMW at IS, but OTOH without ELs, it would be below average...I haven't uploaded in over 2 months though (and I do have 160 photos that were uploaded elsewhere in the mean time)

alfonsodetomas · « **Reply #43 on:** February 01, 2012, 16:44 »

BME at SS

ShadySue · « **Reply #44 on:** February 01, 2012, 17:00 »

iStock: $$ up c38% on last Jan; dls up c20%. The EL fairy didn't visit me in Jan. 2011.
Alamy: 0

I'm struggling to keep the faith.

(Edited because I'd undercounted; figures adjusted now that the figures are finally complete on iStock.)

Freedom · « **Reply #45 on:** February 01, 2012, 17:23 »

Quote from: ShadySue on February 01, 2012, 16:29

Quote from: traveler1116 on February 01, 2012, 16:01
Quote from: gostwyck on February 01, 2012, 15:56
^^^ Are you serious?

Volunteering to put your entire microstock income into the hands of an agency whose sales (for Lisa) have been dropping off a cliff for several months; who have no known leadership; who have just laid off a good chunk of their staff; who have an unenviable history of reducing commissions to their contributors; who are intending to sell the business on; whose site is totally bug-ridden and which they can't fix; whose site appears vulnerable to fraud; who keep screwing up the displayed statistics/RC's; who keep sending 'reimbursement' emails without good explanation; who frequently change the default sort-order causing wild shifts in income; etc, etc?

Why on earth would you do that?
Yes I'm serious that's why I did the math and I would guess she would have made 10-25% more income for the month (if not much more since non exclusive were hit pretty badly these last two months). Obviously there are other issues besides money that can affect ones choice but those are secondary to how much income I'm making. The point is that if she makes 25% of her income as a nonexclusive then as an exclusive all things being equal she should do about the same, all things aren't equal though and those things favor exclusives so she should do much better.

If you read the Jan sales thread on the iStock forums, you'll see that exclusives are all over the place: some reporting BME, some the very opposite.

The fact that some IS harshest critics still remain exclusive shows that IS is not doomed, yet.

For Lisa, it is a tough call. Not only she will benefit from higher earning, she can also focus on being more productive in producing more quality images. Then the flip side..., I am sure she knows what she is doing.

helix7 · « **Reply #46 on:** February 01, 2012, 17:30 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 01, 2012, 16:06

Even if you were correct and it did result in '10-25% more income' ... but for how long with the way sales are dropping (and increasing elsewhere)? Three months later you might need to revert back to independent and then you've lost years of work in the sort-order positions, levels, rank, etc. You'd have to be mad to even contemplate it.

That's what I'm thinking. It's easy to look at one month and say that Lisa might have done better as an exclusive for that month alone. It's difficult to say that one month is indicative of a trend, and that the trend will continue. Especially when we're talking about the company that has a prior mark on their record of cutting pay rates once already, and they're also one of two companies that appears to be on the steepest decline for most independents. "Risky" doesn't even begin to describe the idea.

Although I have to admit I'm a bit biased by my own experience with istock. Seeing my istock earnings drop to just 6% of my monthly total for January, it's impossible for me to believe that anyone is better off as an exclusive. But obviously my personal experience factors heavily into that belief.

gostwyck · « **Reply #47 on:** February 01, 2012, 17:45 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on February 01, 2012, 16:36

That's true. My point with this was that without sales increasing from becoming exclusive (which they undoubtedly would have since the best match favored exclusives over nonexclusives in January) the difference in RCs and % might be enough alone to make becoming exclusive worth it. There would also be a higher % for thinkstock and Vetta and Agency files to add to income. So without an increase in sales I would guess overall income would have been higher. When I went exclusive it was a pretty simple calculation because the only thing that really changed was the %, now the RCs change and that can be as much of a difference in income as the royalty %.

I don't think there's anything wrong with your maths, it's Istock's past history and the general market trends that lend the flaw to your theory for me. If, last month, I'd have averaged $4 per sale at Istock (as an average reported exclusive figure) then I'd only have earned about half what I did as an independent. With improved best match positioning I might have done a little better but unlikley to be enough to make up the difference.

If that wasn't bad enough, when I look at my data and see where Istock appear to be heading relative to other agencies, SS in particular, then going exclusive would appear to be doomed to failure in the longer term.

lisafx · « **Reply #48 on:** February 01, 2012, 17:46 »

Quote from: gostwyck on February 01, 2012, 16:06

Even if you were correct and it did result in '10-25% more income' ... but for how long with the way sales are dropping (and increasing elsewhere)? Three months later you might need to revert back to independent and then you've lost years of work in the sort-order positions, levels, rank, etc. You'd have to be mad to even contemplate it.

Is the correct answer. All the reasons you've outlined above are reasons I would not dream of Istock exclusivity. Not to mention that the painstaking process of quitting all other sites takes a minimum of 6 months. To be honest, I am not even sure Istock will be around, in its current form, six months from now.

I really don't understand why I have to go over this every month with some exclusive or other, trying to persuade me to go exclusive with Istock.

I'm sure you all mean well, but with a portfolio of around 7k images, what you are suggesting is not a minor undertaking. It's a complete upheaval - a totally new career path. If Istock exclusivity wasn't tempting enough a couple of years ago, in their heyday, why would anyone consider upending their entire career now, when Istock are clearly floundering?

BTW, this entire discussion supposes that becoming exclusive is even an option, which due to a "bug" or by design, it isn't currently.

And just so there is no ambiguity: I HAVE NO INTENTION OF GOING EXCLUSIVE WITH ISTOCKPHOTO. So kindly stop trying to persuade me, because it's getting pretty tiresome having to repeat the litany of reasons that's a bad idea every month.

ShadySue · « **Reply #49 on:** February 01, 2012, 17:55 »

Quote from: lisafx on February 01, 2012, 17:46

BTW, this entire discussion supposes that becoming exclusive is even an option, which due to a "bug" or by design, it isn't currently.

Not trying to persuade you to become exclusive - I know you were seriously considering it a while back; but throughout the AR bug, it's still been possible to become exclusive, should one wish, if one has 500 dls.
The AR is fixed as of overnight last night UK time, so presumably that means that route is available again.