MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: IS New exclusive earnings rating ???  (Read 1956 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: February 13, 2013, 10:16 »
0
Leaf, to be sure I'm understand the meaning of the exclusive number (currently 222.1), it is still in a score of 100 = $500 a month? 

This means that the score 222.1 = 500 x 2.221 = $1,110.50 reported average income for an exclusive Istocker?

If so then the reported combined non-exclusive total (all the poll results with a number total excluding the exclusive Istock number) is 259.4 which = 500 x 2.594 = $1,297 reported average income for an independent?
« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 10:33 by Sadstock »


« Reply #26 on: February 13, 2013, 10:21 »
0
It seems to suggest that if you are exclusive, your iStock income is seven times higher than it would be if you were independent. That's a pretty impressive set of handcuffs (but is Sean in there, skewing the figures?)

I've never done it.  Never really knew what the poll was about, actually...

LOL! So now I can sit here working out how much more I would have made if I'd been exclusive for the last eight years! Lovely.

« Reply #27 on: February 13, 2013, 10:59 »
0
It seems to suggest that if you are exclusive, your iStock income is seven times higher than it would be if you were independent. That's a pretty impressive set of handcuffs (but is Sean in there, skewing the figures?)

I've never done it.  Never really knew what the poll was about, actually...

LOL! So now I can sit here working out how much more I would have made if I'd been exclusive for the last eight years! Lovely.

If you consider that the poll doesn't allow more than detail than 2500+, you can surely assume that Sean would have clicked that button for the last few years.

« Reply #28 on: February 13, 2013, 11:03 »
0
It seems to suggest that if you are exclusive, your iStock income is seven times higher than it would be if you were independent. That's a pretty impressive set of handcuffs (but is Sean in there, skewing the figures?)
Nope, he can't skew the figures because the highest amount we can put in is only $2500+.  Many exclusives beat that every month.  I think putting it to $5000+ would make it more accurate.

« Reply #29 on: February 13, 2013, 11:25 »
0
@ Tyler

Is it possible to have an 'Indie Total' number added for an immediate comparision?

Really good idea, it will be a hot topic this year.

Why isn't Alamy on the indy list, they must be middle to lower tier surely?
I think a reworking of the poll is needed if we want accurate results.  From my understanding right now an exclusive photographer that also sells video would be counted as an independent because they would have some income from Pond5, maybe Shutterstock, or others.  Adding Alamy into it would make most exclusives income show up as nonexclusives because a lot of us have RM work there.  A check box for independent/exclusive is probably needed to get a reasonably good comparison.

« Reply #30 on: February 13, 2013, 12:37 »
0
You could still add up the individual poll result for each contributor and get a rating for the overall income. Would still help put things in perspective about indie total vs exclusive ratings.

Or just total up the Agency figures showing up on the left (including iStock indy) and put a category at the top 'Agencies combined' with it's earning rating - treat the total like a separate Agency. Simples :-)

Yeah, that seems like a good solution.
Total using only the Top Tier Big 4? Or the Top and Middle tiers? I'm not sure I would do the whole list as I doubt many people submit to every agency. The Agency Combined needs to be somewhat representative of the market (albeit, the S&P and NASDAQ use different criteria for the stocks they select).

« Reply #31 on: February 13, 2013, 13:05 »
0
@ Tyler

Is it possible to have an 'Indie Total' number added for an immediate comparision?

Really good idea, it will be a hot topic this year.

Why isn't Alamy on the indy list, they must be middle to lower tier surely?

Is Alamy microstock?

« Reply #32 on: February 13, 2013, 14:38 »
0
Leaf, to be sure I'm understand the meaning of the exclusive number (currently 222.1), it is still in a score of 100 = $500 a month? 

This means that the score 222.1 = 500 x 2.221 = $1,110.50 reported average income for an exclusive Istocker?

If so then the reported combined non-exclusive total (all the poll results with a number total excluding the exclusive Istock number) is 259.4 which = 500 x 2.594 = $1,297 reported average income for an independent?

correct.

It is a very broad average though.  The top limit of $2500 probably limits a lot of people, both on Shutterstock and for iStock exclusives (perhaps Fotolia as well for some).  Right now it looks like independents are earning a bit more, but in terms of how accurate the poll results are, they are essentially identical.  The poll is just meant to give a rough guide as to how the agencies stack up against each other.  The yearly microstock survey will give a better idea of how exclusive/non-exclusive compare.

mattdixon

« Reply #33 on: February 13, 2013, 14:41 »
0
@ Tyler

Is it possible to have an 'Indie Total' number added for an immediate comparision?

Really good idea, it will be a hot topic this year.

Why isn't Alamy on the indy list, they must be middle to lower tier surely?

Is Alamy microstock?

Similar prices as Vetta, E+ and Agency at iStock.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
858 Views
Last post July 13, 2008, 21:31
by imageZebra
0 Replies
495 Views
Last post May 11, 2012, 04:24
by seawhisper
10 Replies
841 Views
Last post January 29, 2013, 16:15
by gostwyck
13 Replies
822 Views
Last post September 03, 2013, 03:00
by Beppe Grillo
38 Replies
2240 Views
Last post September 30, 2013, 05:06
by PZF

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors