istock Exclusive Earnings Rating 307.7 ?

[pixel8]

If iStock is changing to Subs and Exclusives are getting a bum deal then is Earnings Rating for Exclusive of 307.7 still accurate?

My end Goal is to be Exclusive for iStock but if they are going to lose there 307.7 Exclusive Earning Rating and have it drop below 83.5 Shutterstock Rating then obviously the Exclusive option is out!

[Dook]

I wouldn't rely on these numbers when making such an important decision.

[ShadySue]

If iStock is changing to Subs and Exclusives are getting a bum deal then is Earnings Rating for Exclusive of 307.7 still accurate?

My end Goal is to be Exclusive for iStock but if they are going to lose there 307.7 Exclusive Earning Rating and have it drop below 83.5 Shutterstock Rating then obviously the Exclusive option is out!

The new subs won't have filtered in yet. IIRC, we won't get any income report until the end of May.

[cthoman]

I wouldn't rely on these numbers when making such an important decision.

I agree.

[chromaco]

I think the flaw with the earnings poll is that the collection of the membership voting is disregarded and the agency is given the credit instead. I think you could argue that collective of contributors who are exclusive as a whole are a stronger performing group than the collective of contributors who are independent. If you were to take the same size group of exclusives and relate them to a corresponding group of independents. Same types/sizes and performing portfolios and did this on a one to one basis I would bet that the earning potentials are not all that different. In other words 100 exclusive contributors versus 100 independent contributors with comparable portfolios. The real issue here is that the voting groups are vastly different and that is skewing the results. This is what is causing the huge earnings discrepancy and not necessarily the agencies.

The other problem is where people have decided to spend their time. Exclusives have put all of their effort into Istock and that is where their results are showing. Independents have spread their results over multiple agencies. My guess is that whatever direction you choose to make a change you are likely to take a financial hit until you can rebuild at the new place. Finally, when you add up the total numbers for independents a number of very high performing sites are not represented in the polls because of voting minimums.

[tickstock]

.

[Shelma1]

Another problem is that the top number in the poll is $2,500. In all seriousness.

[ShadySue]

But it may also be that until relatively recently, a lot of iS exclusives had no real interest in other sites, so may not be all that well represented here. Times have changed, of course.

[chromaco]

Finally, when you add up the total numbers for independents a number of very high performing sites are not represented in the polls because of voting minimums.

This would hurt exclusives numbers many many times more than nonexclusives.  How many contributors here are making more than 2500/month at Shutterstock?  My guess is very few.  If you were to ask that of exclusives I would guess many of them would be well over that.

True, but this just reinforces my contention that the voting groups are nowhere near equal. In all reality the IS number probably should be higher but that is due to the quality of contributors rather than the agency.

[tickstock]

.

[chromaco]

Yes, it says that 4-6 years ago anyone who had a high performing portfolio was crazy not to be exclusive. After that it simply became too expensive to leave. If I had started in 2006 versus 2010 there is no doubt in my mind I would have been exclusive as well. The question is when I would have decided when to drop it. I honestly don't know what I would have done and I think about it a lot.

[ShadySue]

Finally, when you add up the total numbers for independents a number of very high performing sites are not represented in the polls because of voting minimums.

This would hurt exclusives numbers many many times more than nonexclusives.  How many contributors here are making more than 2500/month at Shutterstock?  My guess is very few.  If you were to ask that of exclusives I would guess many of them would be well over that.

True, but this just reinforces my contention that the voting groups are nowhere near equal. In all reality the IS number probably should be higher but that is due to the quality of contributors rather than the agency.

That may be true.  But if it is, doesn't that say something very important if the best quality contributors are exclusive?

Or pseudo-exclusive, which is a horse of a different colour.

[tickstock]

.

[pixel8]

Finally, when you add up the total numbers for independents a number of very high performing sites are not represented in the polls because of voting minimums.

This would hurt exclusives numbers many many times more than nonexclusives.  How many contributors here are making more than 2500/month at Shutterstock?  My guess is very few.  If you were to ask that of exclusives I would guess many of them would be well over that.

So two things here, 1st $2,500 a month at Shutterstock, is there some sort of cap at Shutterstock? I have heard this number before on earnings there, when you reach $2,500 there is an invisible Cap or something! Why is is hard to make more than $2,500 at Shutterstock? And when you Mention Exclusives you are talking about iStock Correct?

[tickstock]

.

[Ron]

Finally, when you add up the total numbers for independents a number of very high performing sites are not represented in the polls because of voting minimums.

This would hurt exclusives numbers many many times more than nonexclusives.  How many contributors here are making more than 2500/month at Shutterstock?  My guess is very few.  If you were to ask that of exclusives I would guess many of them would be well over that.

So two things here, 1st $2,500 a month at Shutterstock, is there some sort of cap at Shutterstock? I have heard this number before on earnings there, when you reach $2,500 there is an invisible Cap or something! Why is is hard to make more than $2,500 at Shutterstock? And when you Mention Exclusives you are talking about iStock Correct?

There is no earnings cap on SS

Edit: If I am wrong, and the down vote says I am, please tell me what the earnings cap at Shutterstock is. I am not aware of this earnings cap.

[pixel8]

Finally, when you add up the total numbers for independents a number of very high performing sites are not represented in the polls because of voting minimums.

This would hurt exclusives numbers many many times more than nonexclusives.  How many contributors here are making more than 2500/month at Shutterstock?  My guess is very few.  If you were to ask that of exclusives I would guess many of them would be well over that.

So two things here, 1st $2,500 a month at Shutterstock, is there some sort of cap at Shutterstock? I have heard this number before on earnings there, when you reach $2,500 there is an invisible Cap or something! Why is is hard to make more than $2,500 at Shutterstock? And when you Mention Exclusives you are talking about iStock Correct?

There is no earnings cap on SS

I have submitted a few hundred photos that normally would have increased my monthly income but instead nothing has changed in terms of income increase. Which is why i keep wondering if their is some sort of cap or perhaps a system they have in place to only show so many of your images per day so that they can show pictures from all contributors on their site.

[Ron]

In 14 months to $2500 a month, on SS alone, thats insane.

[KB]

If iStock is changing to Subs and Exclusives are getting a bum deal then is Earnings Rating for Exclusive of 307.7 still accurate?

That number represents March income, before subscriptions began. It says nothing about what may or may not be happening now, or (even more importantly, since IS has barely begun pushing sub sales) in the future.

[wordplanet]

If the poll showed RPI rather than income, it might prove more helpful, but again, given the vast difference in people's portfolios, it's really not so much an accurate representation of what the average microstocker can expect to earn on those sites, but more a way to see which sites do better, for most people.

It's too bad self-hosted and Stocksy don't have enough voters to get them into the poll, but again, you're always comparing apples to oranges, so knowing that an average portfolio earns $xxx a month, while helpful as a way to compare how you stand vis-a-vis the average microstocker on here, won't really help you predict how well you can expect to do on each site.

The benefit to a poll that showed RPI for each site, would be that you can better gauge how your portfolio does compared to the average, but that would be a far more complicated poll and given the low earners, the RPI numbers for some would be 0.000xx - really discouraging!

[pancaketom]

I think being actively exclusive is also somewhat selecting for people that do well at IS. If your income gets hosed enough you quit exclusivity - so all that is left are those that still do well there.

[ARTPUPPY]

Yes, the numbers are not accurate because it's not possible to get everybody to submit the data. When ever you hear about statistics, there's an old story about a diner and sitting at the counter are three truckers. Bill Gates comes in and sits next to them. Instantly the average net worth of the four men comes to 75 million dollars. It's tough to say how istock (or any site) is doing for people because you have too many variables, how many images are they selling, what kind of images, do they promote themselves, etc. I'm sure some have done OK, but for the majority, there is a decline (myself included). It's important to read up on how the business treats it's contributors, corporate decisions, marketing, but you cannot put a score number on that.

[YadaYadaYada]

If the poll showed RPI rather than income, it might prove more helpful, but again, given the vast difference in people's portfolios, it's really not so much an accurate representation of what the average microstocker can expect to earn on those sites, but more a way to see which sites do better, for most people.

It's too bad self-hosted and Stocksy don't have enough voters to get them into the poll, but again, you're always comparing apples to oranges, so knowing that an average portfolio earns $xxx a month, while helpful as a way to compare how you stand vis-a-vis the average microstocker on here, won't really help you predict how well you can expect to do on each site.

The benefit to a poll that showed RPI for each site, would be that you can better gauge how your portfolio does compared to the average, but that would be a far more complicated poll and given the low earners, the RPI numbers for some would be 0.000xx - really discouraging!

Add 2nd poll on it's own page, or more all polls to own page.

[cthoman]

If the poll showed RPI rather than income, it might prove more helpful, but again, given the vast difference in people's portfolios, it's really not so much an accurate representation of what the average microstocker can expect to earn on those sites, but more a way to see which sites do better, for most people.

It's too bad self-hosted and Stocksy don't have enough voters to get them into the poll, but again, you're always comparing apples to oranges, so knowing that an average portfolio earns $xxx a month, while helpful as a way to compare how you stand vis-a-vis the average microstocker on here, won't really help you predict how well you can expect to do on each site.

The benefit to a poll that showed RPI for each site, would be that you can better gauge how your portfolio does compared to the average, but that would be a far more complicated poll and given the low earners, the RPI numbers for some would be 0.000xx - really discouraging!

Add 2nd poll on it's own page, or more all polls to own page.

I always wanted to see the poll without the 50 people minimum.

[stocked]

So much I like this forum but I don't like this poll, it's way too easy manipulate and I'm almost certain some people do.