Author Topic: Big 4? (Read 21678 times)

modellocate · « **on:** January 21, 2009, 22:40 »

Is it just me, or does everyone's earnings from Dreamstime, Fotolia, Shutterstock, and StockXpert over the past year sit far above istock and bigstock?

vonkara · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2009, 22:44 »

Not me Istock is way in front Shutterstock this month and Fotolia is even behind 123Rf. Haha I'm way different than the poll actually

goldenangel · « **Reply #2 on:** January 22, 2009, 01:51 »

I think it would be hard to agree on the big 4

For me it is SS, FT, IS, and StockXpert. DT and 123rf, and BigStock are about the same for me, far behind.

fotografer · « **Reply #3 on:** January 22, 2009, 02:11 »

For me it's definitely FT, SS, IS and DT in that order with StockXpert lagging and BS and 123rf well behind.
Crestock I don't even bother uploading to any more, just go in every 2 or 3 months to claim a payment.

sharply_done · « **Reply #4 on:** January 22, 2009, 10:06 »

Quote from: fotografer on January 22, 2009, 02:11

For me it's definitely FT, SS, IS and DT in that order with StockXpert lagging and BS and 123rf well behind.
Crestock I don't even bother uploading to any more, just go in every 2 or 3 months to claim a payment.

Same here, but sorted differently.

gostwyck · « **Reply #5 on:** January 22, 2009, 10:26 »

Quote from: modellocate on January 21, 2009, 22:40

Is it just me, or does everyone's earnings from Dreamstime, Fotolia, Shutterstock, and StockXpert over the past year sit far above istock and bigstock?

No. IS are still my biggest earner followed by SS, FT and DT.

Helped in part by the price increase IS are actually doing very well for me this month with 35% of total earnings, up from their all time low of 27.7% in December. Mind you, their numbers are boosted somewhat by the slump at SS which is looking like 4 consecutive months of falling sales.

araminta · « **Reply #6 on:** January 22, 2009, 10:33 »

Quote from: goldenangel on January 22, 2009, 01:51

I think it would be hard to agree on the big 4 For me it is SS, FT, IS, and StockXpert. DT and 123rf, and BigStock are about the same for me, far behind.

I'm often quite surprised to see such ranking based on a so tiny data set: statistics are significant and become useful only when enough data are taken into account.

In your case, you say that DT is "far behind " IS. You have only 9 downloads at IS and 6 at DT and you are correct: you have 50% more downloads at IS compared to DT... but it corresponds to only 3 downloads!

Anybody is obviously free to give such statistics... I have no problem with that, but all those ranking posts become quite useless unless they are based on a bigger data set.

Just my 2c

Pixart · « **Reply #7 on:** January 22, 2009, 10:46 »

Quote from: sharply_done on January 22, 2009, 10:06

Quote from: fotografer on January 22, 2009, 02:11
For me it's definitely FT, SS, IS and DT in that order with StockXpert lagging and BS and 123rf well behind.
Crestock I don't even bother uploading to any more, just go in every 2 or 3 months to claim a payment.

Same here, but sorted differently.

Not necessarily in that order, but always my top 4. Well - with the exception of FT. It had a long period after V2 where it often fell to 5 or 6, but I seem to have joined the search engine again in about September.

If I had a crystal ball to look into I would guess that I will no longer see SS on top next year at this time (based on my last year's results vs 2007 vs low sales of new uploads.)

sam100 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 22, 2009, 10:49 »

Quote from: araminta on January 22, 2009, 10:33

Quote from: goldenangel on January 22, 2009, 01:51
I think it would be hard to agree on the big 4 For me it is SS, FT, IS, and StockXpert. DT and 123rf, and BigStock are about the same for me, far behind.

I'm often quite surprised to see such ranking based on a so tiny data set: statistics are significant and become useful only when enough data are taken into account.

In your case, you say that DT is "far behind " IS. You have only 9 downloads at IS and 6 at DT and you are correct: you have 50% more downloads at IS compared to DT... but it corresponds to only 3 downloads!

Anybody is obviously free to give such statistics... I have no problem with that, but all those ranking posts become quite useless unless they are based on a bigger data set.

Just my 2c

I totally agree here..

Patrick h.

goldenangel · « **Reply #9 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:03 »

Quote from: araminta on January 22, 2009, 10:33

Quote from: goldenangel on January 22, 2009, 01:51
I think it would be hard to agree on the big 4 For me it is SS, FT, IS, and StockXpert. DT and 123rf, and BigStock are about the same for me, far behind.

I'm often quite surprised to see such ranking based on a so tiny data set: statistics are significant and become useful only when enough data are taken into account.

In your case, you say that DT is "far behind " IS. You have only 9 downloads at IS and 6 at DT and you are correct: you have 50% more downloads at IS compared to DT... but it corresponds to only 3 downloads!

Anybody is obviously free to give such statistics... I have no problem with that, but all those ranking posts become quite useless unless they are based on a bigger data set.

Just my 2c

I agree with you. The more data, the more accurate statistics. Then the question comes up, what is enough data? If there are pre-established criteria, perhaps by the rules of this forum, or industry, I wold follow those and refrain from posting about my sales. Until then, I feel free to do so. In my case, I only join IS in November last year, and my sales there are going much faster (in relative terms) to these others sites, StockXpert and FT included. I have posted my dat in relative terms, as everybody else is doing. I invite the moderators of this forum to predefine when the contributors are considered worthy enough to post their data. Thanks.

disorderly · « **Reply #10 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:20 »

I just had a reminder of how volatile the numbers can be: a single extended license sale at Fotolia pushed them from 5th to 3rd for the month. And that's with a few thousand images on each site and close to a thousand sales a month. If things can be that volatile for me, they're basically meaningless for someone with a handful of sales.

I don't have a top 4; I have a top 5, with the order for 2-4 changing regularly. At the moment the order is SS, SX, Ftl, iS and DT. Actually, Albumo is ahead of DT in 5th, but that's due to a bounty they paid on the last three months of uploads. Not something that will occur very often.

gostwyck · « **Reply #11 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:24 »

Quote from: goldenangel on January 22, 2009, 11:03

The more data, the more accurate statistics. Then the question comes up, what is enough data?

Surely it is perfectly obvious that 6 & 9 sales is not 'enough data' on which to pass judgement?

Looking back on my own graph I would say that the data didn't settle down into meaningful patterns, without wild fluctuations, until I'd been doing microstock for about 18 months and had clocked up about 30K-odd sales.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #12 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:26 »

Can I show my statistics, or I belong to photographers with "tiny data set"??

disorderly · « **Reply #13 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:29 »

Quote from: whitechild on January 22, 2009, 11:26

Can I show my statistics, or I belong to photographers with "tiny data set"??

Of course you can show them, but you also ought to put them into context so we know how meaningful they are. Percentages aren't much good without knowing something about the raw numbers behind them.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #14 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:31 »

Oh, it's too complicated for us Blondes

goldenangel · « **Reply #15 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:32 »

For me, the meaningful patterns have been obvious from the very beginning, as some sites have regular sales, and some don't. But you are welcome to disregard my data. I apologize if I mislead anyone here, it was not my intention.

araminta · « **Reply #16 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:32 »

Quote from: goldenangel on January 22, 2009, 11:03

I agree with you. The more data, the more accurate statistics. Then the question comes up, what is enough data? If there are pre-established criteria, perhaps by the rules of this forum, or industry, I wold follow those and refrain from posting about my sales. Until then, I feel free to do so. In my case, I only join IS in November last year, and my sales there are going much faster (in relative terms) to these others sites, StockXpert and FT included. I have posted my dat in relative terms, as everybody else is doing. I invite the moderators of this forum to predefine when the contributors are considered worthy enough to post their data. Thanks.

It was not a remark against you specifically: many contributors do the same. And you are indeed free to publish whatever you want. It is also not a matter of being a worthy contributor, but a matter of the significance of the statistics. This is not a personal judgment, but a mathematical one: with such small data set, you ranking may be completely different in two days.

There are indeed pre-established criteria: they are defined by the statistical laws. There is a link between the size of the data set and the accuracy of the statistic... but I don't remember this law. But I would say that 1000 downloads seems a minimum to me.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #17 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:36 »

Oh, I will have 1000 downloads in 5 years or more (except on SS)....

araminta · « **Reply #18 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:37 »

Quote from: whitechild on January 22, 2009, 11:36

Oh, I will have 1000 downloads in 5 years or more (except on SS)....

Until then, you should thus take your own statistics with a BIG grain of salt

goldenangel · « **Reply #19 on:** January 22, 2009, 11:38 »

I joined SS in mid November and have 200+ downloads, on DT I have 6 since last August, I don't think that can change in two days. Some patterns are quite clear to me so far, and that's how I understood the purpose of this thread.

gostwyck · « **Reply #20 on:** January 22, 2009, 12:03 »

Quote from: goldenangel on January 22, 2009, 11:32

For me, the meaningful patterns have been obvious from the very beginning, as some sites have regular sales, and some don't. But you are welcome to disregard my data. I apologize if I mislead anyone here, it was not my intention.

To be honest you might find your sales somewhat more 'meaningful' if you sorted out your keywording. You appear to be spamming most images with lots of completely irrelevant words whilst leaving out obvious and applicable words that a buyer might actually use to find them.

For example you have an image which appears to be a boy leaping into the air. You don't have 'male, jump, jumping, leap, leaping, person, etc, etc ... but you do have 'woman, adult, love, family, etc'. Accurate keywording is critical to sales and spamming helps no-one.

goldenangel · « **Reply #21 on:** January 22, 2009, 12:10 »

I was not aware of those keywords, and if I did it, it was an honest oversight on my part. I try not to spam with my keywords. Could you point to the image in question?

If you are talking about this image, I dont see those keywords you just mentioned:

Dreamframer · « **Reply #22 on:** January 22, 2009, 12:14 »

Quote from: araminta on January 22, 2009, 11:37

Quote from: whitechild on January 22, 2009, 11:36
Oh, I will have 1000 downloads in 5 years or more (except on SS)....

Until then, you should thus take your own statistics with a BIG grain of salt

Well, the person who poster this thread has 100 sales on DT, and I have 127 which means:
1. I am more qualified to talk about DT, or
2. We both are not qualified to talk about DT, or
3. You should quote the first post in this thread, to cut it out from the start
4. Something else..

I personally think 1000 is too much. I can say from this point, that I have 127 DL's on DT and 31 DL's at FT and I started FT before DT. I think it's enough for statistics. Also, until average photographer gets to the point of 1000 images online, several agencies wont' be online anymore, and some of them will be born.
That's why I think much less is enough for statistics.

gostwyck · « **Reply #23 on:** January 22, 2009, 12:23 »

Quote from: goldenangel on January 22, 2009, 12:10

I was not aware of those keywords, and if I did it, it was an honest oversight on my part. I try not to spam with my keywords. Could you point to the image in question?

This was the image;

http://www.dreamstime.com/happiness-image6493742

I only looked at a couple of others but clearly this image of mushrooms should not have words such as 'isolated, red, orange, happy, kitchen, restaurant, diet, flower, etc

http://www.dreamstime.com/two-white-mushrooms-image6180525

goldenangel · « **Reply #24 on:** January 22, 2009, 12:27 »

Thanks for pointing it out, it was an oversight on my part and not intentional spamming. Those were some of my first pictures. As you can see, I have corrected the keyrods on that image later, when I submitted my image on SS:

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-20628223-boy-expressing-happiness-by-jumping-in-the-park.html

I will try to correct these mistakes. Again, thanks for pointing that out to me.

sharply_done · « **Reply #25 on:** January 22, 2009, 12:29 »

Quote from: araminta on January 22, 2009, 10:33

...
Anybody is obviously free to give such statistics... I have no problem with that, but all those ranking posts become quite useless unless they are based on a bigger data set.

Just my 2c

This problem was much worse before leaf implemented the 'speedometers' underneath people's icons.

Edit: My personal measure of 'statistical validity' is when getting a few ELs per month doesn't dramatically affect your overall income, nor does getting one or two ELs from a specific agency dramatically affect it's ranking. This translates to licensing several thousand images per month, which not many people here do.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #26 on:** January 22, 2009, 12:30 »

Everyone makes mistakes. I just looked into portfolios of other persons arguing here and I found them

So, it's a standard error in statistics

sam100 · « **Reply #27 on:** January 22, 2009, 12:31 »

Quote from: sharply_done on January 22, 2009, 12:29

Quote from: araminta on January 22, 2009, 10:33
...
Anybody is obviously free to give such statistics... I have no problem with that, but all those ranking posts become quite useless unless they are based on a bigger data set.

Just my 2c

This problem was much worse before leaf implemented the 'speedometers' underneath people's icons.

what are these meters supposed to do.?.

Patrick H.

goldenangel · « **Reply #28 on:** January 22, 2009, 12:34 »

Quote from: whitechild on January 22, 2009, 12:30

Everyone makes mistakes. I just looked into portfolios of other persons arguing here and I found them So, it's a standard error in statistics

Thanks Whitechild. It is interesting that some people presume right away that spamming was intentional.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #29 on:** January 22, 2009, 12:38 »

I would like gostwyck to give us link to his DT portfolio, just to take a look, if it's not a problem. If it is....than there is a problem

But if he can be fast, because he can check all images and correct all errors

sharply_done · « **Reply #30 on:** January 22, 2009, 12:45 »

Quote from: patrick1958 on January 22, 2009, 12:31

what are these meters supposed to do.?.

Patrick H.

To me they give an air of credibility for people I do not know.
It would be better if they reflected sales rate instead of volume, but what can ya do, huh?

sharply_done · « **Reply #31 on:** January 22, 2009, 12:52 »

Quote from: whitechild on January 22, 2009, 12:38

I would like gostwyck to give us link to his DT portfolio, just to take a look, if it's not a problem. If it is....than there is a problem
But if he can be fast, because he can check all images and correct all errors

I'm pretty sure I know who he is - if you knew, too, you wouldn't be so quick to say that.

goldenangel · « **Reply #32 on:** January 22, 2009, 13:04 »

Sharply_done, I am pretty sure he is a an experienced stock contributor. However, I am trying to understand what he did in this thread. When he didn't like my post, he actually went into my portfolio and analyzed the keywords in my images, obviously with an intention of finding something wrong. While I appreciate that he did point to those errors, I don't appreciate that he implied I did it intentionally.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #33 on:** January 22, 2009, 13:09 »

everyone has errors, and that's true. I don't want to offend him or anyone and I didn't say only he has errors. Everyone has. I went onto portfolios of all persons arguing here, and I found tons of errors. It's not such a big deal. It's normal. Only IS has something close to real control of keywords

sharply_done · « **Reply #34 on:** January 22, 2009, 13:21 »

Quote from: whitechild on January 22, 2009, 13:09

everyone has errors, and that's true. I don't want to offend him or anyone and I didn't say only he has errors. Everyone has. I went onto portfolios of all persons arguing here, and I found tons of errors. It's not such a big deal. It's normal. Only IS has something close to real control of keywords

Yeah, I know: it's always easy and tempting to be exuberant with keywords, and there are precious few who aren't guilty of this. I wrote out of turn and with a bit of a knee-jerk reaction - sorry about that. You'd think I'd know better by now.

lisafx · « **Reply #35 on:** January 22, 2009, 13:37 »

My Big 4 would be IS, SS, FT, DT . Although the order changes slightly from time to time, it's always those four.

anaire · « **Reply #36 on:** January 22, 2009, 13:39 »

@Sharply Done
Is a black diamond a credible enough position for you?
Well then, I've seen black diamonds' portfolios, (quite respected, quite well known, thank you very much), and they spam the crap out of buyers.
The moment you post here and go for an obvious witch hunt insde somebody's else portfolio is the moment you should stand up to your claim.
If you look at mine, be credible please, and show yours!

@GoldenAngel
No worries!
Your data is important to ME.
I'm a newbie, just like you, and your stats are important to me.
I post here. I am a stock photographer. I participate. I am interested. I am part of this. I should be allowed to read any information that I consider relevant.
And I am grateful for your generosity to share your information with me.
I'm only sorry you don't do so well at DT. I like them and I'm sure that if you give them time enough they'll show rewards.
Regarding the topic - if they didn't want newbies to participate, they should have said so. Fair enough.

@White Child,
let's wait for the 1000 download. It may not be that far away, and by that time our positions will considerably change.
I just hope we remain friendly and fun.
In the end that's all that matters.
PS - A short note. Don't post any more photos on IS Critique's forum. You've got nobody to help you there except for a bunch of out of touch, delusional exclusives who still firmly believe that IS is the 8-th wonder of the world and nothing can ever be compared to it.
Best,
Anna

goldenangel · « **Reply #37 on:** January 22, 2009, 13:56 »

Thank you anaire! Regarding DT, I will keep uploading there. I appreciate the site and its review process is one of the most consistent ones. I hope that, with time I will do better there.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #38 on:** January 22, 2009, 13:57 »

Well said Anna,
Thank you!

araminta · « **Reply #39 on:** January 22, 2009, 14:09 »

Quote from: whitechild on January 22, 2009, 12:14

Well, the person who poster this thread has 100 sales on DT, and I have 127 which means:
1. I am more qualified to talk about DT, or
2. We both are not qualified to talk about DT, or
3. You should quote the first post in this thread, to cut it out from the start
4. Something else..

I personally think 1000 is too much. I can say from this point, that I have 127 DL's on DT and 31 DL's at FT and I started FT before DT. I think it's enough for statistics. Also, until average photographer gets to the point of 1000 images online, several agencies wont' be online anymore, and some of them will be born.
That's why I think much less is enough for statistics.

Well, I would not argue with you; feel free to give any statistics you want: as I said before, I have no problem with that.

I guess my post is not clear enough, but I will try again to explain the whole idea: the question is not to decide who is qualified to talk about anything. Anybody is qualified to talk here for me.

This is not about a subjective distinction between who is allowed to talk and who is not, this is about a mathematical/statistical law.

I guess that if everybody here is interested in knowing what are the "Big 4", it is because it is interesting from a business point of view to submit to the most profitable agencies.

If someone say "DT is far behind IS", this could be an important piece of information for anybody here.

The problem is that with 6 downloads at DT and 9 at IS, it is quite possible that tomorrow or in one week, the very same person write here "IS is far behind DT". I could easily show you how correct I am here: it would cost me a few dollars to purchase 6 pictures from his portfolio today at DT and tomorrow the contributor will have 12 sales at DT and 9 at IS.

Let's say that tomorrow IS announce that only exclusive contributors will be allowed to submit at IS and all other accounts will be closed. My question is: should this contributor decide to become exclusive or not? Should he base his decision on those statistics?

sharply_done · « **Reply #40 on:** January 22, 2009, 14:26 »

Quote from: anaire on January 22, 2009, 13:39

@Sharply Done
Is a black diamond a credible enough position for you?
Well then, I've seen black diamonds' portfolios, (quite respected, quite well known, thank you very much), and they spam the crap out of buyers.
The moment you post here and go for an obvious witch hunt insde somebody's else portfolio is the moment you should stand up to your claim.
If you look at mine, be credible please, and show yours!
...

I don't understand why you have attacked me.

I have never, and will never, go on a 'witch hunt' inside someone's portfolio. In the few times I've pointed out keywording problems, it's always been with a 'you need to improve - try including "this" and "that"'. I do not ever correct or report keywords at the agencies that offer such features, either. As far as being credible goes, I think it's fair to say that I'm well-known on this forum, and I like to think, although to a far lesser degree, in this industry. I think of myself as 'one of the good guys' here, and try to always stay helpful and positive (though not always with success, unfortunately). Although I no longer have my portfolio links displayed, it is extremely easy to find my work. I find it ironic that you would 'call me out' on this last point when you have no portfolio links, nor is your work easily found.

araminta · « **Reply #41 on:** January 22, 2009, 14:35 »

For those interested in improving not only their photography skills, but also there ability to analyze their sales

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

From the standard margin of error formula, if a contributor has for example 30% sales coming from DT and 20% sales coming from IS, he would say "DT is better than IS".

If the number of downloads is around 10, the standard error on those percentage is something like 15%... which means that DT is between 15-45% and IS between 5-35%. It is thus quite possible that IS is a better performer than DT.

If the number of downloads is 1000, the error is 2% which means that DT is between 28-32% and IS between 18-22%: DT is here a clear winner, no question.

I think that 1000 is a typical sample size used in polls such as "Who are you going to vote for? McCain or Obama?". This give a result with a 2-3% margin of error.

It would indeed be a lot simpler to ask to only 10 US citizens... but the result would be just meaningless.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #42 on:** January 22, 2009, 14:37 »

Ok guys..this must be because of global economic crisis.

We started to attack each other, for what?
I say let's stop. This is going nowhere. This thread should be renamed to "newbies against oldies". Lets talk about something productive.

araminta · « **Reply #43 on:** January 22, 2009, 14:41 »

Well... I really try to be productive...

Everybody agree (hopefully) that you have to improve your photography skills to become a better microstocker: "newbies" come here to learn from "oldies" (am I wrong?)

But I also think that it is important to be able to analyse your sales too to take any decision concerning your portfolio (what kind of photo do sell, which agencies are the best).

But I guess that not everybody agree with me : newbies seems not to have to learn anything on this point

madelaide · « **Reply #44 on:** January 23, 2009, 12:27 »

I never have a Big 4, it's more Big 5 (IS, StockXpert, DT, FT and BigStock), with BigStock basically around any of the last positions.

Regards,
Adelaide

RacePhoto · « **Reply #45 on:** January 23, 2009, 15:49 »

Quote from: sharply_done on January 22, 2009, 12:45

Quote from: patrick1958 on January 22, 2009, 12:31
what are these meters supposed to do.?.

Patrick H.

To me they give an air of credibility for people I do not know.
It would be better if they reflected sales rate instead of volume, but what can ya do, huh?

That's why I have my meters turned off, they are pinned in Park.

I wasn't going to reply to this thread, but since all the answers are pretty much in agreement. Big seven covers it all, there isn't much use even looking for a #8.

Varied portfolios and subjects means some people do better at some sites than others. That's why BS, 123RF and StockXpert can sometimes work better for some than Fotolia or DT. Reviews and upload limits at IS can lower the photos up for sale, so it's going to be lower in dollar volume.

NancyCWalker · « **Reply #46 on:** January 25, 2009, 16:31 »

IS and SS are battling for first. DT is firmly in 3rd. Fourth is currently BigStock although FT is on their heels. CC, with no sales, and 123, with 2 sales, are trailing. StockXpert wouldn't take me when I applied but I applied after the Getty buyout. In fairness I've only been with most of these since late Oct or early Nov 2008 so there isn't enough data for a long term representation.

PixelsAway · « **Reply #47 on:** January 25, 2009, 17:12 »

I don't have Big 4, but the big 3: SS, IS, and DT with one year portfolio of 500-800 pictures.

The contribution from other agencies (StockXpert, FT, 123RF, BigStock) varies from month to month.

cathyslife · « **Reply #48 on:** January 25, 2009, 18:37 »

I have a Big 5...IS, SS, DT, StockXpert and BigStock.

IS is usually No. 1, BigStock is usually No. 5. Right now, SS is way behind for me, though. For the most part, IS stays at No. 1 all the time. The other 4 have ebbs and flows.

null · « **Reply #49 on:** January 25, 2009, 19:22 »

Quote from: anaire on January 22, 2009, 13:39

If you look at mine, be credible please, and show yours!

Sharp has a large and beautiful port.

As to the subject, I never fill in the stats at the right since I personally feel you have to have 100$/month per site at least to make statistically reliable statements.

The meter at the left: very biased by recent uploads, for instance on DT. Somebody that uploads 100-200 per month will look bad since those uploads had too little time to sell yet.

The most realistic estimate of sales evolution per site could be done by Lookstat, in an anonymous way, since they have all the real sales figures.

Big 4: DT, SS - then [IS,BigStock,123] about the same but much lower.

Phil · « **Reply #50 on:** January 26, 2009, 06:09 »

IS = roughly the next 3, being DT+FT+SS (in that order) for me, StockXpert is next and about 1/2 of DT,

modellocate · « **Reply #51 on:** February 10, 2009, 07:33 »

OK, looks like it was just me. Thanks for the input.

e-person · « **Reply #52 on:** February 10, 2009, 08:07 »

To me only IS and SS deliver a steady interest from buyers to my photos.

DanP68 · « **Reply #53 on:** February 10, 2009, 17:02 »

For me there are only 3 sites worth contributing to: Shutterstock, iStock, and Dreamstime. Those 3 make up over 85% of my total earnings. The other 6 sites are worth less than 15%, and are time wasters.

CCK · « **Reply #54 on:** February 12, 2009, 06:31 »

Well, I'm glad to see others still have a big 4 - I'm basically down to the big 2, for me DT and about 10% behind SS is running for second place for February. This is the firts time for me that SS is not in first place at any given time of the month. IS is really not doing good for me at the moment, and I've stopped uploading to the other sites.

DanP68 · « **Reply #55 on:** February 12, 2009, 22:01 »

I'll probably be down to just 3 or 4 sites soon. I'm not closing my accounts anywhere, but I see no point in contributing to the lesser sites. It's twice the work for 15% of the revenue - senseless.

I'm very happy with my Top 3, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, and iStock. All 3 of them treat me well, and I've never had to fight them over a gross injustice. They also keep the sales coming. iStock and Dreamstime have been really good for me for recurring sales. Shutterstock just keeps chugging along. Even though recurring sales aren't as strong there, I still get plenty of downloads from images uploaded 12-18 months ago.

I'm tempted to continue uploading to StockXpert because they have at times shown the ability to generate healthy returns in the last 6 months. But with the 30c subscriptions sales, and declining volume overall, I am losing patience there too. BigStock, 123, FP, and SV have largely been wastes of time and effort.

gostwyck · « **Reply #56 on:** February 12, 2009, 22:26 »

Quote from: DanP68 on February 12, 2009, 22:01

I'll probably be down to just 3 or 4 sites soon. I'm not closing my accounts anywhere, but I see no point in contributing to the lesser sites. It's twice the work for 15% of the revenue - senseless.

You simply must get amongst FT my friend. My own data projects them to be the most likely eventual 'winner' in microstock although it will probably take another 2-4 years before it is fully realised. I know different folk have hugely different experiences there in terms of both acceptance ratios and sales but it is worthwhile persevering for the eventual rewards. Good luck!

DanP68 · « **Reply #57 on:** February 13, 2009, 11:07 »

No thank you. Too many attempts by FT to undermine contributors in the last year with ridiculous policies. I left them 2 months ago and am satisfied with my decision.

By the way, the same predictions being made about FT were being made about StockXpert 1 year ago.

travelstock · « **Reply #58 on:** March 28, 2009, 19:57 »

Quote from: lisafx on January 22, 2009, 13:37

My Big 4 would be IS, SS, FT, DT . Although the order changes slightly from time to time, it's always those four.

Yep same for me - last week has seen a reversal between IS and SS - thanks to SS being down and IS being significantly up - other than that occasionally DT pips IS for #2, but the norm for me is

1.SS
2. IS
3. DT
4. FT

eppic · « **Reply #59 on:** March 28, 2009, 20:43 »

My big 4 are Istock (around 60% of my total sales revenue), then SS, StockXpert and DT; although SS is declining as I don't have alot of images in my port anymore to submit there. I've managed one payout from BigStock, but sales there are slooooow.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Big 4? (Read 21678 times)

vonkara

lisafx

RacePhoto

e-person

DanP68

DanP68

DanP68

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors