pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: October Earnings  (Read 19773 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: November 01, 2013, 16:29 »
+1
Earnings for the year to date are about 10% down. Almost entirely to drop in revenue from Istock. I don't find this surprising.

Working through submitting my port to deposit at the moment. Looking at the earning ratings on the right that could pick up for the drop in earnings from Istock.

RPD at dreamstime was the worst this year (83c) so although I had okay DL numbers earning there were a bit down. (I had a couple of months @ 160-200c)  I suppose in defence the RPD at DT was higher than SS this month.

Another thing I should investigate is why my earnings are so low at fotolia. 4% of monthly earnings. Some people must be doing much better there.


w7lwi

  • Those that don't stand up to evil enable evil.
« Reply #51 on: November 01, 2013, 18:59 »
0
Best month this year and today, more DL's on SS that any day in October.  Good start to another month.  Not a BME as last year as there was one month with multiple very high dollar SOD's and numerous EL's.  Love to have one of those months again, but realistically I'm not holding my breath.

« Reply #52 on: November 01, 2013, 20:25 »
0
At the moment. i think you are by far the most enthusiastic public istock exclusive. I am not seeing anyone else post so positively about istock like you do. Not even on the istock forums, not on their facebookgroup or other places.

And any public comment,especially a positive one, is free advertising for an agency.

Hmm __ good point. Tickstock could easily be an Istock admin in disguise.

... or a PR agency  :)
I'm thinking they could find someone better to do their PR don't you?

Not at all. You're well worth all the money they're paying you. I just hope they are paying you as it would be really sad otherwise.
I'm flattered.  I also hope you getting paid well by Mr. Oringer.

 ;D ;D ;D

« Reply #53 on: November 01, 2013, 20:29 »
+1
Across the board about 90% higher than last October. October was my second worst month last year and it is my second worst month this year. No sales on my personal site this month and just a bunch of cards on FAA but hoping I'll see things pick up on both in November. I had one of my photos chosen to be featured in "Featured Photographers" on Photoshelter earlier this week, so hoping that brings in some visitors - it's a fine art piece so I'll see how it goes.

For the year I'm at 300% of last year with two months to go. Half of my stock photo income this year came from direct stock photo sales to clients who either found me through my Photoshelter site or from publishers I approached directly. Another 14% is due to sales on FAA which isn't exactly stock but is certainly similar.  I've increased my portfolios at SS, DT and iS (just recently) between 10 and 20% and am up 35% on my combined income from all three last year, so that's actually not too bad.  Alamy meanwhile has fallen off a cliff for me (it's about 1/3rd what it was last year and the few RM sales I'm getting over there have been for a pittance).

I think you all have the right idea with Symbiostock and looking to find a good outlet for RM work. Getting 100% of the license fee or close to that and licensing images for $100-$500 and up per license is clearly the way to go.

lisafx

« Reply #54 on: November 01, 2013, 22:59 »
0
Does anyone actually know what they made on Istock yet?  I still show no sales after the 25th of October, but I know I made sales. 

I am hesitant to report on the month without those stats.  I can say that even if I made a couple hundred more than I am currently showing it was a poor month, and absolutely pitiful for October.  First time in 8 years I haven't seen a post summer bump in September and October. 

Guess this is the new normal for me.   :-P

« Reply #55 on: November 02, 2013, 00:03 »
0
Does anyone actually know what they made on Istock yet?  I still show no sales after the 25th of October, but I know I made sales. 

+1, no sales report after the 25th of October.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #56 on: November 02, 2013, 03:23 »
0
Does anyone actually know what they made on Istock yet?  I still show no sales after the 25th of October, but I know I made sales. 

I am hesitant to report on the month without those stats.  I can say that even if I made a couple hundred more than I am currently showing it was a poor month, and absolutely pitiful for October.  First time in 8 years I haven't seen a post summer bump in September and October. 

Guess this is the new normal for me.   :-P

I worked out mine manually, which was easy as I had only 21 sales in that time.  :'(
FWIW, I got a slight Sep/Oct 'bump', but only because July especially, and Aug were troughs of unimagined depth.

« Reply #57 on: November 02, 2013, 09:41 »
+11
If my earnings were animals:


SS - Whale
DT - Elephant
IS - Hippo
BS - Pig
FT - Piglet
Others - Shrimp

« Reply #58 on: November 02, 2013, 10:42 »
+1
This is in no way a knocking exercise although I'm sure it will be so interpreted (I'm just a pedantic SOD who likes the facts to add up).  No high symbio earnings and, based on those that are, the actual score on the right would be somewhere between 4 and 8.

Ron

« Reply #59 on: November 02, 2013, 11:18 »
+1
This is in no way a knocking exercise although I'm sure it will be so interpreted (I'm just a pedantic SOD who likes the facts to add up).  No high symbio earnings and, based on those that are, the actual score on the right would be somewhere between 4 and 8.
Self hosted is ALL direct sales, not solely Symbiostock.

« Reply #60 on: November 02, 2013, 11:35 »
+1
This is in no way a knocking exercise although I'm sure it will be so interpreted (I'm just a pedantic SOD who likes the facts to add up).  No high symbio earnings and, based on those that are, the actual score on the right would be somewhere between 4 and 8.

In order to post a result at all you would need at least one sale. At $15-$20 per sale the score would be in the 3-4 range just to start. I think it is very likely that 15-20% of the self hosted people voting are actually getting very good sales. Those 8-10 people are probably bringing up the score quite a bit. When you couple this with a pretty high entry level I think this score is probably fairly accurate. My self hosted results were third in my personal rankings and just below shutterstock. Symbio was about 1/4 of my self hosted earnings.

« Reply #61 on: November 02, 2013, 11:52 »
0
Self hosted has been around for a while - where was it on the chart?  Symbio comes along and suddenly #3?? 

Ron

« Reply #62 on: November 02, 2013, 11:54 »
+1
It never had the required 50 votes before.

« Reply #63 on: November 02, 2013, 12:03 »
0
It never had the required 50 votes before.

In other words symbio is the difference and completely obliterates the "ALL direct sales" argument.  I've no axe to grind here as I wish the initiative well but, as things stand, that rating is a completely inaccurate and misleading statement of the facts.

Ron

« Reply #64 on: November 02, 2013, 12:06 »
0
It never had the required 50 votes before.

In other words symbio is the difference and completely obliterates the "ALL direct sales" argument.  I've no axe to grind here as I wish the initiative well but, as things stand, that rating is a completely inaccurate and misleading statement of the facts.

No not at all. As per example, It could have had 49 x 500 dollar votes sitting there, and needed one more vote, to get it on the board, which could have been the symbio votes.

« Reply #65 on: November 02, 2013, 12:10 »
+1

In order to post a result at all you would need at least one sale. At $15-$20 per sale the score would be in the 3-4 range just to start.

If you have to make a sale to post earnings then it will lead to massive inflation of the "self-hosted" figure, because all the sales will be at a decent price and all those who are trying to sell but failing will be excluded. There should be an "earnings = 0" option to dilute the figure and give a more representative idea of the sort of return people can reasonably expect, in comparison with how they do on other sites.

Ron

« Reply #66 on: November 02, 2013, 12:12 »
0
There is a earnings is 0 option, on every agency and self hosted


« Reply #67 on: November 02, 2013, 12:17 »
+2
Yes this is correct. A similar imbalance is probably in play with the exclusive ranking. Not so much zero sales, but probably a much lower percentage of low performers. As far as self hosted goes even though it may not be exactly relative to the rest of the poll it does illustrate that it is possible to make decent money by hosting your own site.

In order to post a result at all you would need at least one sale. At $15-$20 per sale the score would be in the 3-4 range just to start.

If you have to make a sale to post earnings then it will lead to massive inflation of the "self-hosted" figure, because all the sales will be at a decent price and all those who are trying to sell but failing will be excluded. There should be an "earnings = 0" option to dilute the figure and give a more representative idea of the sort of return people can reasonably expect, in comparison with how they do on other sites.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2013, 12:19 by chromaco »

« Reply #68 on: November 02, 2013, 12:27 »
0
Yes this is correct. A similar imbalance is probably in play with the exclusive ranking. Not so much zero sales, but probably a much lower percentage of low performers. As far as self hosted goes even though it may not be exactly relative to the rest of the poll it does illustrate that it is possible to make decent money by hosting your own site.

In order to post a result at all you would need at least one sale. At $15-$20 per sale the score would be in the 3-4 range just to start.

If you have to make a sale to post earnings then it will lead to massive inflation of the "self-hosted" figure, because all the sales will be at a decent price and all those who are trying to sell but failing will be excluded. There should be an "earnings = 0" option to dilute the figure and give a more representative idea of the sort of return people can reasonably expect, in comparison with how they do on other sites.

Correct - different cross-sections of people reporting in both cases will produce skewed results without any implication of dishonest reporting.

« Reply #69 on: November 02, 2013, 12:32 »
0
Yes this is correct. A similar imbalance is probably in play with the exclusive ranking. Not so much zero sales, but probably a much lower percentage of low performers. As far as self hosted goes even though it may not be exactly relative to the rest of the poll it does illustrate that it is possible to make decent money by hosting your own site.

In order to post a result at all you would need at least one sale. At $15-$20 per sale the score would be in the 3-4 range just to start.

If you have to make a sale to post earnings then it will lead to massive inflation of the "self-hosted" figure, because all the sales will be at a decent price and all those who are trying to sell but failing will be excluded. There should be an "earnings = 0" option to dilute the figure and give a more representative idea of the sort of return people can reasonably expect, in comparison with how they do on other sites.

Correct - different cross-sections of people reporting in both cases will produce skewed results without any implication of dishonest reporting.

Yeah, the thing is that on microstock sites - or, at least, those worth mentioning - nobody here will have zero sales. On the really minor sites there would be some inflation, but the sales those generate are so low-priced that it wouldn't lift them substantially. Self-hosting and Alamy are places where the difference between getting a sale and not getting one can be so huge that it introduces severe bias into the results.

I'm not certain that the survey does allow for zero sales or not, since I don't seem to come across it much.

« Reply #70 on: November 02, 2013, 12:56 »
0
Whew, somebody gets it  :)

« Reply #71 on: November 02, 2013, 12:57 »
0
It never had the required 50 votes before.

In other words symbio is the difference and completely obliterates the "ALL direct sales" argument.  I've no axe to grind here as I wish the initiative well but, as things stand, that rating is a completely inaccurate and misleading statement of the facts.

Self-hosted had actually been ranked pretty high among the unranked sites for a while. If you notice, Clipartof and Stocksy are usually at the top of that section every month. I assume it is because they are high earners for contributors, but they just don't have a lot of contributors. If they every make it to 50 votes, they will probably jump up to the top of the rankings too.

Also, I think anything below $5 count as 0.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2013, 13:00 by cthoman »

« Reply #72 on: November 02, 2013, 14:34 »
+4
Given that the data is submitted I wonder why not post the complete raw data anonymized. Even if that means in a format which needs to be processed to be useful. I am sure we could quickly come up with spreadsheets to make sense of it. Then we could see how many people voted and how much they were actually earning at each site.

It seems to me that at the moment the data is made less useful by the way in which it is converted into rankings which are difficult to make sense of.

« Reply #73 on: November 02, 2013, 19:31 »
+1
The poll works well (at least the relative proportions match what I see in my own stuff) where most contributors would be involved.  Getting a realistic average from IS exclusive, self hosted and some of the very high RPD / low DLs sites as well as the more specialist sites (certain illustrators/ video specialists report "low earners" as performing much better than portrayed) is more challenging.

« Reply #74 on: November 04, 2013, 05:50 »
0
Given that the data is submitted I wonder why not post the complete raw data anonymized. Even if that means in a format which needs to be processed to be useful. I am sure we could quickly come up with spreadsheets to make sense of it. Then we could see how many people voted and how much they were actually earning at each site.

It seems to me that at the moment the data is made less useful by the way in which it is converted into rankings which are difficult to make sense of.
Agreed.

What does the current 82.7 for shutterstock mean? Not the percentage of earnings, obviously, since the sum is not 100. It should either be clear what the ranking means, or just feed the raw data in an anonymous fashion.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
23 Replies
8204 Views
Last post November 07, 2007, 23:59
by hatman12
October earnings

Started by Slovenian « 1 2 3  All » General Stock Discussion

55 Replies
14912 Views
Last post November 05, 2011, 16:00
by ShadySue
October Earnings

Started by Lightrecorder General Stock Discussion

20 Replies
5111 Views
Last post November 04, 2014, 15:36
by oboy
October Earnings Post

Started by nobody « 1 2  All » iStockPhoto.com

39 Replies
11193 Views
Last post November 20, 2018, 21:35
by rushay
12 Replies
3650 Views
Last post November 09, 2019, 11:53
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle