MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Do you think MSG earning rating could be accurate?

Yes
23 (31.1%)
No
30 (40.5%)
Have no idea
21 (28.4%)

Total Members Voted: 67

Author Topic: Self-hosted 3rd, Dreamstime in middle tier  (Read 8263 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 05, 2013, 21:40 »
0
I checked Microstock poll results and was very surprised to see the new classification, especially 'Self-hosted' (Symbiostock) on third position. If it is true, it is a revolution and very good news but I am rather skeptical.
Any thoughts?


« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2013, 22:04 »
+1
There was a pretty long thread about this if you are interested:

http://www.microstockgroup.com/selling-direct/self-hosted-at-14-6-top-5/

Oh, and in answer to the question... I'd say, yes. I think it is accurate. You can rack up some pretty high dollar sales from selling direct.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2013, 22:12 by cthoman »

« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2013, 22:11 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 01:14 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2013, 23:32 »
+4
YES, most definitely.

Self-Hosted has been off the radar because there weren't enough votes to meet the quorum of 50 voters. Then came Symbiostock, which helped to get self-hosted well within radar range. Now self-hosted is a mix of well-established self-hosting veterans, who generate good income from their sites plus a bunch of newcomers to self-hosting (like myself) thanks to Symbiostock. From what I gather from forum threads it is especially vectors that are already selling very good on the new Symbiostock sites. Now mix in a few stock photo sales (like those I got so far), all at good prices and 100% royalty. And there you have it: Bronze Medal for Self-Hosted (if Leaf's Poll Results were an Olympic discipline  ;D)   

« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2013, 03:36 »
0
Probably correct for the elite group of higher earners but less so for us minnows down the food chain - good to see and will probably only grow - may be a project in the new year for me :)

Ron

« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2013, 05:41 »
0
There will always be negative Nancy's that keep complaining its all manufactured and skewed and dishonest. They'd rather be a slave to the stock agencies. Ignore them.

« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2013, 06:02 »
+1
like for every agency in the poll... there are few people making loads of cash and a ton of people making next to nothing.  The amount of people able to make just a little more than pennies push the top sites up.  I've heard of some pretty successful people selling direct (yes mostly vectors) and not using any of the current software.  The average symbio or ktools user probably isn't making much but overall I believe the high reported direct-sales that a few seem to be getting.

« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2013, 17:37 »
+1
The question is not specific enough.  I think the poll is a fair reflection of sites with the same cross-section of contributors but not for sites with just a subset like IS exclusive, self-hosted etc (which is not to say folks aren't doing well - the average numbers are just not being dragged down by us bottom feeders)

« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2013, 17:46 »
+1
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 01:14 by Audi 5000 »

EmberMike

« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2013, 17:52 »
+1

I voted "No" but that was mostly a response to the broader question of whether I think most of the poll results are accurate, which I have to admit I have doubts about. I look at some of those numbers and just can't get my head around them, including self-hosted and istock exclusive.

And I'm one of the people doing ok with self-hosted but not DT or DP kinds of numbers.

On a slightly off-topic note and related to making the pols more accurate, why are the options capped at $2500? Seems to me like this is the easiest thing to change to make the polls more accurate. I have to imagine that someone making $5,000 at SS and only being able to report $2,500 is really throwing off the results.

« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2013, 17:54 »
+2
Sure it could be accurate but the average contributor would have to be doing better than Sean and his 2,700+ high quality, reasonably priced images.

The poll is nothing more than an indicator, crafted by reasonable parameters that won't fit 100 percent of the 10,000,000 examples you will give to debunk it.   

« Reply #11 on: November 06, 2013, 17:54 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 01:13 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2013, 17:58 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 01:13 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2013, 18:05 »
+1
You say every point is 5 dollar
Sean said he made 135 dollar self hosted
Thats 27 points according to you
Self hosted is at 23
It all works out.

« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2013, 18:08 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 01:13 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2013, 18:14 »
-2
The poll is not about averages, its about what you made in the month. The comma changes the sentence, so you have that right, that was an oversight.

So for October is 20 points then. Still matches the poll. Its all works out, still.

But I am sure you have another theory lined up to try and prove everyone wrong. Whats your OCD with that poll man? Let it go. Try flipping the light switch 700 times.

« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2013, 18:17 »
+2
The question is not specific enough.  I think the poll is a fair reflection of sites with the same cross-section of contributors but not for sites with just a subset like IS exclusive, self-hosted etc (which is not to say folks aren't doing well - the average numbers are just not being dragged down by us bottom feeders)
You keep saying this but it makes absolutely no sense.  The iStock exclusive number should represent iStock exclusives, why would it represent some other group (like people who can't get 250 downloads or people that aren't exclusive)?  Can you tell me which group should be represented in the poll numbers that isn't being represented?  The self hosted should represent people that have chosen to build their own site, how can it make sense for the poll to represent people that will not or have not made their own site?   If you were to become exclusive or license images on your own site, you too would be counted.  Until then it makes no sense for you to be counted.  And 250 downloads on iStock or a few hours and $20 for self-hosting is not a high bar to overcome.
To put it another way, no exclusive has less than 250 downloads so why is the number skewed by not having people that haven't reached 250 downloads?  The numbers aren't skewed or incorrect or not fair because people are more likely to have sold more to belong to those groups (if that's even true) it is just be a representation of the way things actually are.
Let me try and use an example that you might get.  Back in the day when IS were useful, I was making 4-5 times more on SS than on IS.  By your logic that would mean that SS was by far the better performing site.   But, I had 20 times the number of images on SS so comparing like with like IS was actually performing better.  This situation is similar, the polls in these areas is not comparing like with like.


« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2013, 18:17 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 01:13 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2013, 18:20 »
-4
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 01:13 by Audi 5000 »

Ron

« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2013, 18:26 »
0
The poll is not about averages, its about what you made in the month. The comma changes the sentence, so you have that right, that was an oversight.

So for October is 20 points then. Still matches the poll. Its all works out, still.

But I am sure you have another theory lined up to try and prove everyone wrong. Whats your OCD with that poll man? Let it go. Try flipping the light switch 700 times.
So you're shown to be wrong again and your reaction is to make personal insults?  At least you haven't changed.
You are not showing anyone they are wrong, you just keep babbling till people give up and you count another victory. By the way, its not an insult, its an observation. You are categorically against any opinion other than yours, and you keep going on about that poll for months. Ok, its not OCD, its an obsession. Fair enough.

« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2013, 18:41 »
+6
Sure it could be accurate but the average contributor would have to be doing better than Sean and his 2,700+ high quality, reasonably priced images.

The poll is nothing more than an indicator, crafted by reasonable parameters that won't fit 100 percent of the 10,000,000 examples you will give to debunk it.
What does that mean?  My point was that if Sean can't reach the average with his portfolio then it's likely the average is artificially high.
Go look at his portfolio and compare it to the ones in the symbiostock thread (because that's what got enough votes to make this number show up). 
The poll is an indicator of the average we enter in each month in terms of $.  100 on the poll being roughly equal to $500.

It means exactly what it means.  It is an indicator.  It's not 100% accurate, intended to be applicable as a guideline for MS site income, but not necessarily a representation for everyone's individual results. That's all it is, Tickstock.  So throwing Sean's portfolio into the mix really doesn't mean too much since there are data called outliers (I consider Sean's port an outlier from most of us who participate on MSG).  When  you incorporate outlier data into a data set you generally get a broader degree of error from the mean.  We call that standard deviation from the mean.  Because all of our techniques, shooting styles, commercial image value (quality), volume, key wording accuracy, etc. varies you are adding in more deviation to portfolio performance.  We call this poor repeatability and reproduceability (R&R).  When you have poor R&R you will NEVER have accuracy in these polls and that's why you can never compare Sean to, say, me (on a one to one basis). It's apples and oranges comparing just the two of us (not that you suggested this).  But add in a lot of apples and oranges to the mix and you have even broader deviation (large study variance).  What does this mean? When you add in broad deviation you don't have accuracy. This is why it is an INDICATOR.  So quit trying to pick it apart...it is what it is.

« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2013, 19:06 »
+1
Is Sean Mikey from Life cereal now?  ;D

« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2013, 19:14 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 01:13 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2013, 19:44 »
+2
Sure it could be accurate but the average contributor would have to be doing better than Sean and his 2,700+ high quality, reasonably priced images.

The poll is nothing more than an indicator, crafted by reasonable parameters that won't fit 100 percent of the 10,000,000 examples you will give to debunk it.
What does that mean?  My point was that if Sean can't reach the average with his portfolio then it's likely the average is artificially high.
Go look at his portfolio and compare it to the ones in the symbiostock thread (because that's what got enough votes to make this number show up). 
The poll is an indicator of the average we enter in each month in terms of $.  100 on the poll being roughly equal to $500.

It means exactly what it means.  It is an indicator.  It's not 100% accurate, intended to be applicable as a guideline for MS site income, but not necessarily a representation for everyone's individual results. That's all it is, Tickstock.  So throwing Sean's portfolio into the mix really doesn't mean too much since there are data called outliers (I consider Sean's port an outlier from most of us who participate on MSG).  When  you incorporate outlier data into a data set you generally get a broader degree of error from the mean.  We call that standard deviation from the mean.  Because all of our techniques, shooting styles, commercial image value (quality), volume, key wording accuracy, etc. varies you are adding in more deviation to portfolio performance.  We call this poor repeatability and reproduceability (R&R).  When you have poor R&R you will NEVER have accuracy in these polls and that's why you can never compare Sean to, say, me (on a one to one basis). It's apples and oranges comparing just the two of us (not that you suggested this).  But add in a lot of apples and oranges to the mix and you have even broader deviation (large study variance).  What does this mean? When you add in broad deviation you don't have accuracy. This is why it is an INDICATOR.  So quit trying to pick it apart...it is what it is.
I'm not saying it's 100% accurate there are structural problems with the poll and people can skew some of the results.  It's also an average so of course it's very unlikely to represent everyone's results. 
Sean is an outlier you say?  I agree but not the kind of outlier that does worse than everyone else, if anything I would expect his numbers to be well above the average.  Wouldn't you?  Check out his self-hosted site, it's definitely not below average.
The last point you're making I think is wrong on a few levels.  First the more data you have the better the results will be.  Second the poll limits the max we can enter to a very low number reducing the effect outliers have on it.  If the poll is accurate as an indicator then it is accurate in talking about average $ because those are just two different ways of writing the same thing 100 = $500 you can switch those numbers in an out and not change the results.  If what you are saying is that when SS shows 80 and iStock shows 31 you can say SS is roughly 3 times more profitable you can also say SS earns roughly $400 on average compared to $150 at iStock.  If you don't believe you can say the latter then I don't think you can say that the poll is an indicator at all.  Hope that made sense.

This is untrue in the context I just explained.  Your argument is right if all you want is an average of everyone's income.  But this pissing contest is about how accurate the polls are to each person (that's what is causing this entire debate).  So let's assume for a second that everyone made $1000 a month.  If everyone made this then what is our average? it's $1000; $1000+$1000+$1000+$1000+$1000/5 = $1000.  We're all happy. 

But let's put a more realistic spin on this.  Lets assume the composition of income looked something like this:
1500
2800
500
200
750
1000
5000
100
50
75
250
999
2300
1700
100
130
2100
300
150
10

The average is still $1000, but the ones who are at $10 and $5000 are the ones saying the poll isn't right. Like I stated, there is variance like this due to many factors: our techniques, shooting styles, commercial image value (quality), volume, key wording accuracy, etc. And because of this variance you have monthly figures that vary like above, and because of this you cannot state that the more inputs the better simply because you will still have ranges of income.  Maybe the poll would be better if there were ranges, but without ranges you will only have averages and NEVER be able to account for the variance in income.

« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2013, 19:48 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 01:12 by Audi 5000 »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2724 Views
Last post June 10, 2012, 19:34
by luissantos84
15 Replies
3681 Views
Last post January 30, 2013, 12:53
by cthoman
19 Replies
6378 Views
Last post May 20, 2015, 11:55
by shudderstok
40 Replies
8287 Views
Last post October 09, 2015, 18:00
by stockyme
3 Replies
1491 Views
Last post October 28, 2015, 19:22
by FlowerPower

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle