pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Istock dips below Fotolia in earnings poll for December  (Read 4138 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 06, 2013, 22:45 »
+1
Obviously not everyone has voted for December results yet, but it is pretty striking that Istock is below FT for the month at all.  Is it just that people are voting before the partner program results are in or are people really seeing their total IS income dropping below their FT earnings?

http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?page=PollResults

Note that Istock is still shown above FT on the right hand column poll results because Leaf uses a moving average, not just the results from the past month.


« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2013, 01:57 »
-2
For me IS, sold about 20 times more then FT, during December. I dont vote btw.

gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2013, 02:24 »
0
not for me. I haven't voted yet, with PP I can sneak into the 100+ spot I'm hoping.
FT was utter shyte for me in December, equal WMY. I realise I won't tip the scales but despite all the rubbish iS still is my #1. I hate hate hate their policy of apologising to customers by offering discounts that we pay for.

DP beat DT and 123 in my world.

« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2013, 04:32 »
0
I have a question. Do exclusives get to vote too? If so that would mess up the poll results I would think.

« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2013, 04:35 »
0
I have a question. Do exclusives get to vote too? If so that would mess up the poll results I would think.


Exclusive votes are kept separate.  I plan on displaying them a separate way in the future.
Here's where you vote by the way http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?page=microstockmonthlysurvey

Microbius

« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2013, 04:39 »
0
For me FL ans IS(without Thinkstock) are neck and neck. FL on the rise and IS on the fall. Once I factor in TS earnings it gives IS the lead, probably just for a few more months given the current trend.

« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2013, 10:41 »
0
Even without PP, iStock outearns Fotolia for me by more than 2:1.  With PP it was something like 6:1 last year.  And that's without uploading to either one.  iStock was flat year over year, while Fotolia dropped by almost 60%.

« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2013, 11:03 »
0
I have a question. Do exclusives get to vote too? If so that would mess up the poll results I would think.


Exclusive votes are kept separate.  I plan on displaying them a separate way in the future.
Here's where you vote by the way http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?page=microstockmonthlysurvey


That could be very good info for us exclusives.
Looking forward for it!

mattdixon

« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2013, 11:17 »
0
What do the 'Earnings Rating' figures actually mean, I take it it's not percentages?
Always puzzled me?

« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2013, 11:39 »
0
Even without PP, iStock outearns Fotolia for me by more than 2:1.  With PP it was something like 6:1 last year.  And that's without uploading to either one.  iStock was flat year over year, while Fotolia dropped by almost 60%.

That's to be expected. FT heavily promotes newish images and hardly any images much older than a year or so are shown within the first couple of hundred results on a search.

« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2013, 12:50 »
0
What do the 'Earnings Rating' figures actually mean, I take it it's not percentages?
Always puzzled me?

------------------------------
It is complicated.  My understanding is that when Leaf started with this version of the ratings, he set the theoretical top earning site average earnings as $500.  The current results show the top earning site currently to be shutterstock with a score of 88.9, which I take to mean 88.9% of $500 or $444.50 reported average earnings for December.  Now my understanding gets a bit fuzzier, as I think the number 2 sites score, in this case Istock with a score of 37.9, is a percentage of the number 1 sites earnings, 37.9% of $444.50 or $168.47.  If the number 2 sites score is keyed off the original $500, then Istock earnings would be 37.9% of $500, or $189.50.   

« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2013, 12:59 »
0
You've got it almost right sadstock. The only thing wrong is that all sites are ranked from the $500 base. If a site average is $5 thay will have a rank of 1

Here's the thread
http://www.microstockgroup.com/site-related/why-is-the-shutterstock-ranking-not-100-anymore/

« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2013, 13:07 »
0
so its means that SS is doing 229% better than IS (90.3/39.4 x 100)

« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2013, 13:52 »
+2
so its means that SS is doing 229% better than IS (90.3/39.4 x 100)

Not quite. It means SS is doing 229% of iS, or is 129% better.  100% better is 2x.

« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2013, 13:57 »
0
so its means that SS is doing 229% better than IS (90.3/39.4 x 100)

Not quite. It means SS is doing 229% of iS, or is 129% better.  100% better is 2x.

correct.

« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2013, 14:49 »
0
so its means that SS is doing 229% better than IS (90.3/39.4 x 100)

Not quite. It means SS is doing 229% of iS, or is 129% better.  100% better is 2x.

yep I was thinking of that too, thanks for your reply guys!

RacePhoto

« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2013, 19:07 »
0
And in real numbers, Dreamstime earns the average person responding... $100 a month. Which if you also look at real numbers means the same people earn $450 a month on SS. And those people are also the top 5% of all MicroStock artists.

2011: Type of files

Photography: 636 90% (460 90%)
Illustration: 192 27% (163 31%)
Video: 107 15% (61 10%)
Audio: 18 5%  (5 1%)

How many images do you have online?

Average: 2191 (1450)
Median: 952 (700)
How many illustrations do you have online?

Average: 744 (525)
Median: 200 (250)

Which leads me to this possibly interesting and VERY general conclusion. (which may or may not be seen as fact because it always depends on the quality and style of the images) If you are a photographer and have a variety of 2200 quality photos on SS or an illustrator with 750 files on SS, you can earn $450 a month!

This would not include having 500 photos of your trip to the local reptile zoo, 500 of sliced vegetables, 500 of things isolated on white, and 500 of the same model in different outfits, with the same setup. The 2000 files should have diversity and variety!



so its means that SS is doing 229% better than IS (90.3/39.4 x 100)

Not quite. It means SS is doing 229% of iS, or is 129% better.  100% better is 2x.

yep I was thinking of that too, thanks for your reply guys!


gillian vann

  • *Gillian*
« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2013, 19:47 »
0
i'm afraid i'm not a maths head at all so thanks for putting that into layman's terms and a goal to head for. :)


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
20 Replies
6328 Views
Last post January 09, 2008, 07:04
by DiscreetDuck
37 Replies
13030 Views
Last post January 05, 2009, 18:54
by goldenangel
52 Replies
18452 Views
Last post January 10, 2011, 07:37
by leaf
2 Replies
4267 Views
Last post December 18, 2011, 04:12
by RacePhoto
29 Replies
10079 Views
Last post January 06, 2012, 08:25
by redo

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors