Author Topic: April 2015 Earnings (Read 17704 times)

Mantis · « **Reply #25 on:** May 02, 2015, 08:34 »

My BME. Now, let me bring this into perspective & scale. My last BME was $2300 (I think Jan 2015). This month (April) was $2500, but I had a very non-normal month on Alamy which kicked up my net revenue by $350 (normally $75-100) and addition of a video site landed me a few more bucks. I had a very non-normal 123 month and made $200 instead of my normal $100, so in the end I had about $300 more that is not repeatable income. So BME? Yes. To coin an IS phrase, "is it sustainable"....no.

I hope you don't mind me sharing actual numbers. To me that brings context to percentages, but I do understand why others don't wish to share actual numbers.

File Sold · « **Reply #26 on:** May 02, 2015, 10:10 »

No promlem Mantis. Just bring it on!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #27 on:** May 02, 2015, 10:36 »

Quote from: KB on May 01, 2015, 17:07

Quote from: lucato on May 01, 2015, 17:04
Quote
Your portfolio is about 5x the size of mine, so there's a very good chance that it would act differently from mine.

But to answer your question, Feb '13 happened to be the third-best month of that year for me. Removing GI sales from the comparison, April 2015 was down 60% as compared with my Feb '13. As a more accurate comparison, compared with the "average" month in 2013, April 2015 was down 55%.

Thanks a lot for your feedback. I appreciated that. Taking that value as a reference I would say that today I'm making the same income as non-exclusive when I was exclusive. I know it is not a real way to compare, but just a way to fool myself. :0)
If you had a lot of income from Vetta or Agency sales, I think it is safe to assume that you are probably better off now as a non-exclusive, than you would be if you had stayed exclusive. If not, then probably about the same income, as you said.

Right. I have no idea where I'd be today as an exclusive, because Agency from IS and Getty brought in a lot for me. I'd probably be lower than I am right now as a non-exclusive with no IS.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #28 on:** May 04, 2015, 14:11 »

Right, $200 down from BME.

SS was pants. Not one dollar up from last year, even down 8% from April 2014.
Photodune, pants, like it was 2012
Bigstock, BME
123, BME
CanStockPhoto, pants, like it was 2013
Canva, normal, but no growth

FAA, nothing

Overall, PANTS

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #29 on:** May 04, 2015, 14:35 »

Also, there is no growth on SS, its just adding images to get about the same monthly earnings since February 2014

PixelBytes · « **Reply #30 on:** May 04, 2015, 23:42 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on May 04, 2015, 14:35

Also, there is no growth on SS, its just adding images to get about the same monthly earnings since February 2014

Beats adding more images to make LESS earnings, which seems to be my specialty lately.

dpimborough · « **Reply #31 on:** May 05, 2015, 11:01 »

Something awful happened

Averaged daily earnings (month earnings divided by days in month) up to and including May 5th (all agencies)

ultimagina · « **Reply #32 on:** May 05, 2015, 13:09 »

Once the PP and GI sales will be in, I can expect April to become an overall BME

ranplett · « **Reply #33 on:** May 07, 2015, 12:20 »

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on May 02, 2015, 10:36

Right. I have no idea where I'd be today as an exclusive, because Agency from IS and Getty brought in a lot for me. I'd probably be lower than I am right now as a non-exclusive with no IS.

I had a lot of V/A images, and last September, when they stopped selling higher priced images based on merit, execution and scarcity, I lost about 50% overnight. Then sub sales have been growing, accounting for about 10%. So getting the boot GI may have been a really nice blessing.

50% · « **Reply #34 on:** May 07, 2015, 12:53 »

Quote from: Semmick Photo on May 04, 2015, 14:35

Also, there is no growth on SS, its just adding images to get about the same monthly earnings since February 2014

adding images was one of my biggest mistake. If you had a good portfolio exposure and high acceptance rate than you better leave it as it is. If you adding images nowadays you just kill your good portfolio score and your good sellers will decline.

ultimagina · « **Reply #35 on:** May 07, 2015, 13:04 »

Quote from: 50% on May 07, 2015, 12:53

Quote from: Semmick Photo on May 04, 2015, 14:35
Also, there is no growth on SS, its just adding images to get about the same monthly earnings since February 2014
adding images was one of my biggest mistake. If you had a good portfolio exposure and high acceptance rate than you better leave it as it is. If you adding images nowadays you just kill your good portfolio score and your good sellers will decline.

What makes you think that there is an overall portfolio score beating the individual image merits?

50% · « **Reply #36 on:** May 07, 2015, 13:07 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on May 07, 2015, 13:04

Quote from: 50% on May 07, 2015, 12:53
Quote from: Semmick Photo on May 04, 2015, 14:35
Also, there is no growth on SS, its just adding images to get about the same monthly earnings since February 2014
adding images was one of my biggest mistake. If you had a good portfolio exposure and high acceptance rate than you better leave it as it is. If you adding images nowadays you just kill your good portfolio score and your good sellers will decline.

What makes you think that there is an overall portfolio score beating the individual image merits?

What makes you think that there is no overall portfolio score? From an agency side it does make totally sense to have it and it makes even more sense to deny it that they have one! I'm 100% sure every major agency does have one!

ultimagina · « **Reply #37 on:** May 07, 2015, 14:13 »

Quote from: 50% on May 07, 2015, 13:07

Quote from: ultimagaina on May 07, 2015, 13:04
Quote from: 50% on May 07, 2015, 12:53
Quote from: Semmick Photo on May 04, 2015, 14:35
Also, there is no growth on SS, its just adding images to get about the same monthly earnings since February 2014
adding images was one of my biggest mistake. If you had a good portfolio exposure and high acceptance rate than you better leave it as it is. If you adding images nowadays you just kill your good portfolio score and your good sellers will decline.

What makes you think that there is an overall portfolio score beating the individual image merits?
What makes you think that there is no overall portfolio score? From an agency side it does make totally sense to have it and it makes even more sense to deny it that they have one! I'm 100% sure every major agency does have one!

So you only have a strong belief, but no proof, right?

50% · « **Reply #38 on:** May 07, 2015, 14:44 »

No proof of course. Despite marketing the only difference between the micros is their inhouse technology mainly their search engine you can be assured that everyone that have proof had signed a waterproof NDA!

hooke19 · « **Reply #39 on:** May 07, 2015, 16:25 »

I really believe that there is one statistical tool that would be helpful here thatI have used many times; that being the Moving Average. It is a powerful tool for trend tracking and smoothing and takes less than one minute to calculate per each data point even for a slow person (like me).

1.Average a series of numbers. (eg 1+8+2=avg of 3.7. ) The number"3.7" will then be the first point in the new smoothed data set (graph or whatever.)

2.When you have the next point of additional raw data (lets say, for example "9"), remove the first number of your initial average series ("1"), and add the last number ("9") which results in the series (8+2+9), the average of which is 6.3. The data point 6.3, then, is your 2nd data point in the new smoothed graph. A move from 3.7 to 6.3 is a lot easier trend to follow than a move from 1 to 8.

There are a couple of disadvantages; eg your latest Smoothing Average (SA) graph will always be 2 points (eg months) behind the real data.

You can include as many points in your calculation as you wish, the more more points the better the smoothing, but then SA calculation represents some older data. Each situation has its sweetest spot.

BTW, I'm told that this is a fairly easy formula to set up on a spreadsheet. I often take a quick look at spreadsheet formulae to try to find MA but so far have been unsuccessful.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #40 on:** May 07, 2015, 18:07 »

You may also need to take seasonal factors into account. IMHO the best way is to chart it then let your brain work out the pattern otherwise it gets complicated and a relatively small data set is not really reliable enough. Better to spend time taking more pics

gbalex · « **Reply #41 on:** May 07, 2015, 19:30 »

Quote from: 50% on May 07, 2015, 14:44

No proof of course. Despite marketing the only difference between the micros is their inhouse technology mainly their search engine you can be assured that everyone that have proof had signed a waterproof NDA!

I watched a vid of a presentation from one of their programmers to a outside group of local programmers. He hinted that there was a ranking system in regard to content. He did not elaborate in any way as to how or why the images were ranked.

ultimagina · « **Reply #42 on:** May 07, 2015, 19:57 »

Quote from: gbalex on May 07, 2015, 19:30

I watched a vid of a presentation from one of their programmers to a outside group of local programmers. He hinted that there was a ranking system in regard to content. He did not elaborate in any way as to how or why the images were ranked.

Of course there is one. The image the popularity/relevance algorithm has a lot lot factors built in with different weights like number of downloads, interval between downloads, freshness, number of views, etc.

But I doubt the theories claiming that specific ports or contributors are treated preferentially. It would be counterproductive to favor ports as whole instead individual images. All agencies have all the incentives to present their best images in front of the customers. Who cares who made that photo?

Digital66 · « **Reply #43 on:** May 07, 2015, 20:47 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on May 07, 2015, 19:57

But I doubt the theories claiming that specific ports or contributors are treated preferentially. It would be counterproductive to favor ports as whole instead individual images. All agencies have all the incentives to present their best images in front of the customers. Who cares who made that photo?

You're wrong. So wrong...

ShadySue · « **Reply #44 on:** May 07, 2015, 20:55 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on May 07, 2015, 19:57

But I doubt the theories claiming that specific ports or contributors are treated preferentially. It would be counterproductive to favor ports as whole instead individual images. All agencies have all the incentives to present their best images in front of the customers. Who cares who made that photo?

Alamy (FWIW) make no bones that specific ports are favoured in their Alamy Rank, though newbies get in at a 'middle rank'.
I remember iS once (at least 4 or 5 years ago) had a heavily 'person' weighted best match. It really didn't work, because some old standing big sellers hadn't DAd, so a lot of totally irrelevant files were showing up.
There are other problems with that system, e.g. someone might produce/sell very well in their main genre, but not so good in a new-to-them genre, which nevertheless gets promoted.

gbalex · « **Reply #45 on:** May 07, 2015, 22:37 »

Quote from: Digital66 on May 07, 2015, 20:47

Quote from: ultimagaina on May 07, 2015, 19:57
But I doubt the theories claiming that specific ports or contributors are treated preferentially. It would be counterproductive to favor ports as whole instead individual images. All agencies have all the incentives to present their best images in front of the customers. Who cares who made that photo?
You're wrong. So wrong...

His ranking comment was port specific in regard to quality, type of content which fit buyer needs. He did not elaborate further. I wish I could find the video again.

Semmick Photo · « **Reply #46 on:** May 08, 2015, 00:37 »

Yay the next conspiracy theory

ultimagina · « **Reply #47 on:** May 08, 2015, 06:48 »

Quote from: Digital66 on May 07, 2015, 20:47

Quote from: ultimagaina on May 07, 2015, 19:57
But I doubt the theories claiming that specific ports or contributors are treated preferentially. It would be counterproductive to favor ports as whole instead individual images. All agencies have all the incentives to present their best images in front of the customers. Who cares who made that photo?
You're wrong. So wrong...

Maybe.
But without proof, we are equally wrong in front of the unknown. So far, I only see speculations.

wordplanet · « **Reply #48 on:** May 08, 2015, 11:18 »

I think that at least SS must rank individual images. Even with a small port - just hit 300 images recently, I have files that have sold hundreds of times and they keep selling often the same handful day after day - some show up on page 1 of searches despite hundreds with the same keywords so I would guess that it has to be ranked by the image.

Just my experience but I can't imagine a small port like mine would rank high (unless it's based on the percentage of my images that sell) so it seems like it would be the image.

Midstock/macrostock were up: a couple of sales on Alamy & a handful of direct licenses - zooms on Alamy up too which should mean more sales in the next couple of months.

iS was the only micro trending upward but my sales there are so low that it's probably an anomaly or not statistically significant. Small sales on FAA and redbubble. No ELs & fewer SODs on SS made for a lower than average month there. Higher than average number of sales so far this month at SS but mostly subs so $ is down. DT dropped down to average after an upward trend that started in fall 2014.

Appreciate those who share real $ as well as their graphs.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: April 2015 Earnings (Read 17704 times)

Mantis

File Sold

Sean Locke Photography

Semmick Photo

Semmick Photo

PixelBytes

dpimborough

ultimagina

ranplett

50%

ultimagina

50%

ultimagina

50%

hooke19

Pauws99

gbalex

ultimagina

Digital66

ShadySue

gbalex

Semmick Photo

ultimagina

wordplanet

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors