pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: More bad news on economy  (Read 15481 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: October 19, 2009, 13:25 »
0
Hi Warren,

Oldest trick in the book but it still seems to be working after centuries of use. Pretty amazing.

Best,
Jonathan


« Reply #51 on: October 19, 2009, 14:50 »
0
Funny, I don't recall any site mailing me, asking me not to divulge anything.  Afaik, they couldn't care less.  We all know what various sites pay per download and for royalties.  These numbers are no grounds for battle or anything but a curiousity, as we're all curious what others make.

I see no need to post specific numbers I don't need others deciding to emulate me because they like my charts.

« Reply #52 on: October 19, 2009, 14:57 »
0
Total sales in Micro to date for 10 months is now $41,534 from the last ten moths with 2500 images available. Total cost for production $ 40k so in 10 months I am just starting to make money with another 1000 images to add from last years shoot. Actually I have another 3000 to add to Istock but that's going to take a while : )

Can you tell us how do you calculate RPI? If you need to spend 40K to earn 41K it means you really have profit of 1K with 2.5K images gives around .4 RPI. Also some Igencies show RPD numbers which takes into account only files that are download at least once.


ap

« Reply #53 on: October 19, 2009, 15:02 »
0
i think rpi is based on gross, not net  (accounting for expenses), revenues. just divide gross earnings by # of images.

i do wonder what the sell through rate means though? like how many photos in one's portfolio gets downloaded?

lisafx

« Reply #54 on: October 19, 2009, 15:13 »
0


Can you tell us how do you calculate RPI? If you need to spend 40K to earn 41K it means you really have profit of 1K with 2.5K images gives around .4 RPI. Also some Igencies show RPD numbers which takes into account only files that are download at least once.



That 40k was just his breakeven point.  Everything after that is gravy.  I am sure Jonathan will more than double or triple his initial investment.  

Jonathan, it's generous of you to share your exact figures - even more so if it helps someone else.

Lot's of us choose not to disclose this info for various reasons.  I don't see how any one photographer's figures are especially meaningful to any other photographer.  We all have different portfolios, skills, talents, and time to devote to stock, so one person's figures are in no way indicative of how someone else will do.  

FWIW my husband and I don't go around sharing our income figures with friends or family either.  And none of them go around telling me what they make.  Maybe it is because I am from the South, or something, but it's just considered kind of rude to go around talking about one's income or asking other people what they make.  

Not that I am accusing you of being rude.  You are a nice guy, as we all know, but there are reasons other than nefarious ones that many people prefer to keep their income numbers to themselves.  


ap

« Reply #55 on: October 19, 2009, 15:26 »
0
we're on the west coast and we really need to disclose, down to the penny, how much we earn.  ;D

joking aside, i thought jonathan's rpi comparison across the micro cos were really helpful. i mean, if anyone need to figure out which stock site to join or marry in exclusivity, you have a very scientific # to refer to. whilst rpd indicate how generous or well paying a site is, it doesn't really tell you now well you'll do there.

perhaps, a chart of everyone's rpi, averaged out, would be the NUMBER to rule over all the other #s.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #56 on: October 19, 2009, 15:27 »
0
I don't think any of us expected Jonathan to share exact numbers ... other than the person who seemed to be accusing him of lying.

The point I was making is that we all are here because we have a common interest.  Sharing information about that interest is what I came here for.  Isn't that the idea of a forum?

I do believe that representatives of the agencies are here to disrupt and instigate divisiveness.  It should be obvious.

« Reply #57 on: October 19, 2009, 15:35 »
0
I do believe that representatives of the agencies are here to disrupt and instigate divisiveness.  It should be obvious.

Paranoid?

ap

« Reply #58 on: October 19, 2009, 15:42 »
0
I do believe that representatives of the agencies are here to disrupt and instigate divisiveness.  It should be obvious.

Paranoid?

paranoid that we have a rep of the agencies amongst our midst or that we think you're the rep?

« Reply #59 on: October 19, 2009, 15:56 »
0
I do believe that representatives of the agencies are here to disrupt and instigate divisiveness.  It should be obvious.
Paranoid?
paranoid that we have a rep of the agencies amongst our midst or that we think you're the rep?

The first.  I'm certainly not any rep.  Although if you thought that, it would back up my "paranoid" assertion ;) .

« Reply #60 on: October 19, 2009, 15:57 »
0
I was curious what the formula is. I wish agencies could give contributors better stats. It would be nice to see what percentage of my images sell. I think Lookstat was trying to do that but they were shutdown by SS :-) All I know than my best images can get around $10 at most at SS. DT gives me also per download earnings. My guess is agencies do not want to show RPI cause it's extremely low for most of contributors.

ap

« Reply #61 on: October 19, 2009, 15:59 »
0

The first.  I'm certainly not any rep.  Although if you thought that, it would back up my "paranoid" assertion ;) .

i'm glad you're an independent thinker, sean.  :)

« Reply #62 on: October 19, 2009, 16:23 »
0
Here you go Gostawyk, ... snip ...
 Since this is just Micro I will share my Micro sales since you asked.

That is very generous of you Jonathan but to be honest I'm not particularly bothered by anyone else's earnings other than my own. Micro is so fantastically transparent (although getting a bit less so) that you can fairly easily work out any contributor's earnings anyway. Basically if someone has sold say 3x as many images as you have then it's a reasonable assumption that they've also earned about 3x as much. We don't tend to talk exact money because we already have a fair idea.

Reporting the BME's and monthly %'s on the other hand is useful because, when you compare them to your own, they can be good indicators of seasonal influences and movements in the market between agencies.

I wasn't actually being serious when I suggested you publish your own figures (and I certainly wasn't accusing you of lying as Warren has declared), it simply struck me as somewhat absurd when you said we should. In most places it is socially unacceptable to be so blatant about earnings and yes, I'm in no hurry to encourage extra competition by doing so. Isn't there enough already?

As others have said, one photographer's earnings are in no way representative of what another might earn, rendering such comparisons fairly meaningless.

If the agencies didn't want us to discuss/learn from each other's performance then how come they provide forums, ranking, badges and publish our sales numbers whether we want them to or not? They're not 'dividing and conquering' at all __ they could hardly be doing more to encourage a 'community' spirit of sharing information. If you have some best-selling images then they'll even put them on a list (whether you want them to or not) so that everyone else can copy them.

« Reply #63 on: October 19, 2009, 22:21 »
0
 Wow Folks,

 I feel sharing numbers is helpful and it is a business tool that is of use when you know what the average other guy bottom or top is making it helps us all figure out what is taking place, if you don't see the help in what I shared then no worries. If you see it as bragging that is your perspective but I can tell you it has helped me a great deal to have open free conversations over financial matters with other in this business a great deal.
 Photographers share numbers all the time, at least some do. When you start to look at yourself as a business then maybe it will make more sense. If this is going to be approached like a neighborhood get together than I agree. I don't share my income with my friends and neighbors it is not helpful or relevant to our relationship. If it was then I would share it with them as well.
 I was asked a question and I answered, that is all.

Jonathan

PaulieWalnuts

  • On the Wrong Side of the Business
« Reply #64 on: October 19, 2009, 22:30 »
0
When you start to look at yourself as a business then maybe it will make more sense.
I think this is a key point. What percentage of microstockers are in this for some extra equipment cash versus a serious business?


« Reply #65 on: October 19, 2009, 23:20 »
0
Good Point Paulie,

 There is a big difference and both have their place and should be equally respected.

Best,
Jonathan

WarrenPrice

« Reply #66 on: October 20, 2009, 09:36 »
0
When you start to look at yourself as a business then maybe it will make more sense.
I think this is a key point. What percentage of microstockers are in this for some extra equipment cash versus a serious business?



Not so sure I agree.  Being a "real business" just means he has more to share.  We "pretend businesses" need all the knowledge/information/encouragement we can get.   I find it encouraging to read about success.  Maybe it will give me the incentive to get serious.   8)



lisafx

« Reply #67 on: October 20, 2009, 09:56 »
0

 I feel sharing numbers is helpful and it is a business tool that is of use when you know what the average other guy bottom or top is making it helps us all figure out what is taking place



Oh, I see your point.  Then check out this recent poll.  It should provide a much more comprehensive overview of incomes than anectodal postings :)
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-much-are-you-making/
 
When you start to look at yourself as a business then maybe it will make more sense.


I must be watching different business news channels than you.  My observations of the business world are that most businesses will be very cagey and close-mouthed about what they are actually making.  For example even in public companies it seems to be fairly common practice to inflate earnings when speaking to investors, but minimize them when dealing with auditors.   I don't see a lot of privately held companies posting their earnings for public consumption.

Open sharing is certainly an option, but there are obviously MANY business models and practices that don't involve publicly sharing one's income or other aspects of one's business plan.


« Last Edit: October 20, 2009, 09:59 by lisafx »

« Reply #68 on: October 20, 2009, 10:15 »
0
My observations of the business world are that most businesses will be very cagey and close-mouthed about what they are actually making.

Open sharing is certainly an option, but there are obviously MANY business models and practices that don't involve publicly sharing one's income or other aspects of one's business plan.

Exactly. There's quite a bit of open sharing on the micros (mainly from the hobbiests it has to be said) but then we all pretty much know the numbers anyway as they are on display on most sites.

One thing I don't think I've ever seen is macro photographers being so open or so detailed about that side of the business __ including Jonathan for the most part. As the level of income rises then such talk gets quieter. That's what most people who consider themselves 'a business' do for obvious reasons. The only exception is when someone is bigging themselves up to sell their latest book, seminar or other services. That usually happens when they reckon there's more money to be made selling their expertise than continuing to produce content.

« Reply #69 on: October 20, 2009, 10:21 »
0
The only exception is when someone is bigging themselves up to sell their latest book, seminar or other services. That usually happens when they reckon there's more money to be made selling their expertise than continuing to produce content.

And there certainly is a lot of this going on these days - note all the "toginars" and phone conferences, etc.

« Reply #70 on: October 20, 2009, 11:26 »
0
You folks are funny : )

Best,
Jonathan

WarrenPrice

« Reply #71 on: October 20, 2009, 11:35 »
0
The only exception is when someone is bigging themselves up to sell their latest book, seminar or other services. That usually happens when they reckon there's more money to be made selling their expertise than continuing to produce content.

And there certainly is a lot of this going on these days - note all the "toginars" and phone conferences, etc.

Is that a bad thing?

« Reply #72 on: October 20, 2009, 11:48 »
0
Believe it or not I think its the Istock exclusives that do the most sharing of ideas etc. and generally those that participate in the various events that are set up benefit from it enormously.

I think its the open sharing of ideas that is what makes Istock quite competitive. Obviously they have a large exclusive base to draw from, but they seem to be keen to help those exclusives build their skills too.

On the occasions when I've met up with other microstockers I've learned an enormous amount, as I think have they. Its rare that learning is only a one way exchange.

« Reply #73 on: October 20, 2009, 11:51 »
0
Is that a bad thing?

Making money by "sharing" their knowledge?  It may be smart business for them to rake in the bucks from newbies, but it just grows your competition.

« Reply #74 on: October 20, 2009, 13:31 »
0
 Hi All,

 Not to change up the subject completely but there is a correlation here to what I was getting at you might find it not relative but I do. How many of you are getting a 50/50 split with your agency. That is what stock used to be before RF it was even 60/40 at some agencies in favor of the photographer. Why did it change when the cost of supplying those images dropped dramatically for the agencies during this same time thanks to the internet? I was of the understanding that a forum was for us to support one another about the industry and what we can offer each other to help move ourselves along and have some form of shared understanding, the sharing of knowledge. Knowledge is power and the knowledge I offered is power for anyone that can find it.
 Maybe ask yourself who are you aligning yourself with the agencies or are you just wanting to go it alone. I don't mind some of you not interested in the information but you should really read what some of you have said when I tried to help and offer up information that was asked of me.
 Even asked by an individual who shows no signs on this site as actually being a photographer, more an alter ego of someone else here on the site. No one has answered my question. How does me sharing those numbers which I have shared for 11 years with anyone that wanted to know hurt my business. I think I am doing pretty well.
 As for not offering information as we get bigger I have found the complete opposite the biggest players are the most generous with their knowledge because they are not of a threatened nature. Maybe that is why the are so successful.

Best,
Jonathan


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
5341 Views
Last post March 29, 2006, 01:57
by fintastique
9 Replies
4283 Views
Last post May 03, 2008, 23:39
by Graffoto
25 Replies
9186 Views
Last post September 30, 2008, 15:54
by litifeta
30 Replies
9336 Views
Last post December 08, 2008, 17:13
by lagereek
12 Replies
4859 Views
Last post July 28, 2009, 16:12
by Moonb007

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results