MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: September 2012 Earnings Thread  (Read 14729 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #50 on: October 03, 2012, 09:44 »
0
Sorry to hear that. People are screaming BMEs everywhere? I doubt it. Not a cosolation but I really dont think too many independants here are doing all that much better.

I'm sure it is a mixed bag. Things are going pretty well for me (started in 2006), but it took work rebuilding it. I don't envy the task ahead for any long time exclusive jumping into independence.


« Reply #51 on: October 03, 2012, 10:26 »
0
Sorry to hear that. People are screaming BMEs everywhere? I doubt it. Not a cosolation but I really dont think too many independants here are doing all that much better.

I'm sure it is a mixed bag. Things are going pretty well for me (started in 2006), but it took work rebuilding it. I don't envy the task ahead for any long time exclusive jumping into independence.

Makes two of us but for for anyone doing well there is probably ten doing bad. Also dont forget there are lots of people with small ports or just starters and to them only a few sales a month extra is BME and so on. Its impossible to get an overall picture.

lisafx

« Reply #52 on: October 03, 2012, 11:00 »
0
For me FT was the biggest drop and they used to be a great earner. However these last three days have been reasonably ok so I am considering uploading again.

Me too.  Shockingly bad.  Down 91% from Sept 2011, which was down about 50% from the prior year.

At this rate, FT are on their way to complete irrelevance for me.   

lisafx

« Reply #53 on: October 03, 2012, 11:05 »
+1
Looking at sales for independents, I don't see this as a great time for anyone to dump IS exclusivity. 

Sue, as Istock exclusive, is reporting $ down 5% from August and down 26% from last Sept. 

As an independent, I am down 8% from August and 35% from last year. 

Others from both camps are reporting similar.  Why would anyone make a drastic change to or away from exclusivity in such a volatile situation? 

« Reply #54 on: October 03, 2012, 11:06 »
+1
For me FT was the biggest drop and they used to be a great earner. However these last three days have been reasonably ok so I am considering uploading again.

Me too.  Shockingly bad.  Down 91% from Sept 2011, which was down about 50% from the prior year.

At this rate, FT are on their way to complete irrelevance for me.   

Yes I dont know what they are doing anymore? since the IPO business they seem to have lost all interest and now I suppose they just want to take their money and run.

lisafx

« Reply #55 on: October 03, 2012, 11:09 »
0
I downloaded the (free) beta of StatsPlus to see what it had to say about my iStock September stats - in particular the supposedly missing cash sales.


Thanks for the link.  I have it downloaded, but it has failed to install in three attempts.  I guess I am just going to have to do without the info.   

« Reply #56 on: October 03, 2012, 11:23 »
0
Looking at sales for independents, I don't see this as a great time for anyone to dump IS exclusivity. 

Sue, as Istock exclusive, is reporting $ down 5% from August and down 26% from last Sept. 

As an independent, I am down 8% from August and 35% from last year. 

Others from both camps are reporting similar.  Why would anyone make a drastic change to or away from exclusivity in such a volatile situation?

Isn't your problem sort of the same problem as Sue's? You were doing really well at iStock (majority of your earnings from them), then they dried up and couldn't be replaced by the other agencies.

« Reply #57 on: October 03, 2012, 11:29 »
0
My Sept was virtually the same as last year. 

Since I've been trashing of DT since June I should point out that I finally had a decent month with them - not exceptional, but consistant with 2010 and 2011.

« Reply #58 on: October 03, 2012, 11:35 »
0
iStock Exclusive: Worst download count since 2003. Income is a long way under the "Good Old Days".

what are you waiting for? :o

I assume you are asking why I am still IS Exclusive.
- Many of my early files would not pass current inspections. My noise levels and equipment have gotten so much better since 2003.
- Some of my best sellers include clipping paths and I'm not sure many non-IS sites will transfer them to the buyer. I suspect these clipping paths are significant to making sales.
- Though falling, my PIPY is still above where I think other sites of this day might produce if I start at new payout levels.
- My photography went down some other genres and I didn't shoot as much directly for iStock.
- The substantial effort required to add these files to other sites and to track them for sales progress.

So part of what we see in my chart may well be a normal set of curves as a portfolio ages.  With a relatively level image count, we can see the effects of time, dilution of more files on the site, changes of search engine, and changes to payout schemes (downloads vs RC's).  Even for people who continually add photos to their portfolio, I suspect there comes a time when income decreases faster (with more and more old portfolio) than what the new uploads can create. In the early days it is easy to double your small portfolio - later, with a larger port, not so much.  I do think the IS current Best Match dredges up more stuff from the bottom of the pile in some of its rotating settings. Hence the salable pool (dilution) is also larger just due to the best match.

traveler1116

« Reply #59 on: October 03, 2012, 11:47 »
0
iStock Exclusive: Worst download count since 2003. Income is a long way under the "Good Old Days".

what are you waiting for? :o

I assume you are asking why I am still IS Exclusive.
- Many of my early files would not pass current inspections. My noise levels and equipment have gotten so much better since 2003.
- Some of my best sellers include clipping paths and I'm not sure many non-IS sites will transfer them to the buyer. I suspect these clipping paths are significant to making sales.
- Though falling, my PIPY is still above where I think other sites of this day might produce if I start at new payout levels.
- My photography went down some other genres and I didn't shoot as much directly for iStock.
- The substantial effort required to add these files to other sites and to track them for sales progress.

So part of what we see in my chart may well be a normal set of curves as a portfolio ages.  With a relatively level image count, we can see the effects of time, dilution of more files on the site, changes of search engine, and changes to payout schemes (downloads vs RC's).  Even for people who continually add photos to their portfolio, I suspect there comes a time when income decreases faster (with more and more old portfolio) than what the new uploads can create. In the early days it is easy to double your small portfolio - later, with a larger port, not so much.  I do think the IS current Best Match dredges up more stuff from the bottom of the pile in some of its rotating settings. Hence the salable pool (dilution) is also larger just due to the best match.
Wouldn't one expect a drop like that at any site?  It looks like you haven't really added any new files since the end of 2005 (maybe +1% as far as I can tell), that's a long long time.

lisafx

« Reply #60 on: October 03, 2012, 14:51 »
0
Looking at sales for independents, I don't see this as a great time for anyone to dump IS exclusivity. 

Sue, as Istock exclusive, is reporting $ down 5% from August and down 26% from last Sept. 

As an independent, I am down 8% from August and 35% from last year. 

Others from both camps are reporting similar.  Why would anyone make a drastic change to or away from exclusivity in such a volatile situation?

Isn't your problem sort of the same problem as Sue's? You were doing really well at iStock (majority of your earnings from them), then they dried up and couldn't be replaced by the other agencies.

Yes. Probably we are experiencing the same thing.  Although it isn't just Istock.  I've lost even more ground at FT than Istock. 

My point was in response to the people who are telling Istock exclusives to drop exclusivity.  Independence is not a panacea for falling sales. 

I know your situation is different Cory, but you are a rather unique case, being A) an illustrator, and B) the only person I know outearning the micros with your own site. 
« Last Edit: October 03, 2012, 14:54 by lisafx »

« Reply #61 on: October 03, 2012, 17:18 »
0
iStock Exclusive: Worst download count since 2003. Income is a long way under the "Good Old Days".

what are you waiting for? :o

I assume you are asking why I am still IS Exclusive.
- Many of my early files would not pass current inspections. My noise levels and equipment have gotten so much better since 2003.
- Some of my best sellers include clipping paths and I'm not sure many non-IS sites will transfer them to the buyer. I suspect these clipping paths are significant to making sales.
- Though falling, my PIPY is still above where I think other sites of this day might produce if I start at new payout levels.
- My photography went down some other genres and I didn't shoot as much directly for iStock.
- The substantial effort required to add these files to other sites and to track them for sales progress.

So part of what we see in my chart may well be a normal set of curves as a portfolio ages.  With a relatively level image count, we can see the effects of time, dilution of more files on the site, changes of search engine, and changes to payout schemes (downloads vs RC's).  Even for people who continually add photos to their portfolio, I suspect there comes a time when income decreases faster (with more and more old portfolio) than what the new uploads can create. In the early days it is easy to double your small portfolio - later, with a larger port, not so much.  I do think the IS current Best Match dredges up more stuff from the bottom of the pile in some of its rotating settings. Hence the salable pool (dilution) is also larger just due to the best match.
Wouldn't one expect a drop like that at any site?  It looks like you haven't really added any new files since the end of 2005 (maybe +1% as far as I can tell), that's a long long time.

I can understand that but it doesnt make much sense, a good file is a good file no matter the age (yes there are subjects like clothes/haircuts that become "obsolete"), what is istock trying to do? satisfy new contributors or regular uploaders? total downloads at istock doesnt mean much thats what we can conclude beside the best match game

« Reply #62 on: October 03, 2012, 17:38 »
0
Yes. Probably we are experiencing the same thing.  Although it isn't just Istock.  I've lost even more ground at FT than Istock. 

My point was in response to the people who are telling Istock exclusives to drop exclusivity.  Independence is not a panacea for falling sales. 

I know your situation is different Cory, but you are a rather unique case, being A) an illustrator, and B) the only person I know outearning the micros with your own site.

I definitely agree (my SS numbers last month were ugly), and I know I have been lucky by having some of the illustration opportunities that aren't available to everyone.

traveler1116

« Reply #63 on: October 03, 2012, 17:45 »
+1
I can understand that but it doesnt make much sense, a good file is a good file no matter the age (yes there are subjects like clothes/haircuts that become "obsolete"), what is istock trying to do? satisfy new contributors or regular uploaders? total downloads at istock doesnt mean much thats what we can conclude beside the best match game
Congrats, I'm a bit surprised that your images from 6 years ago are selling just as well now as they were back then.  Mine aren't.

OM

« Reply #64 on: October 03, 2012, 18:42 »
0
For me FT was the biggest drop and they used to be a great earner. However these last three days have been reasonably ok so I am considering uploading again.

Me too.  Shockingly bad.  Down 91% from Sept 2011, which was down about 50% from the prior year.

At this rate, FT are on their way to complete irrelevance for me.   

Yes I dont know what they are doing anymore? since the IPO business they seem to have lost all interest and now I suppose they just want to take their money and run.

I'm not sure but I don't think FT IPO'd. The owner sold a 300 million chunk of private stock to KKR investors. IMHO owners know the best time to sell!

« Reply #65 on: October 03, 2012, 18:45 »
0
I can understand that but it doesnt make much sense, a good file is a good file no matter the age (yes there are subjects like clothes/haircuts that become "obsolete"), what is istock trying to do? satisfy new contributors or regular uploaders? total downloads at istock doesnt mean much thats what we can conclude beside the best match game
Congrats, I'm a bit surprised that your images from 6 years ago are selling just as well now as they were back then.  Mine aren't.

Exactly. How can older images, no matter how good they are, generate the same income nowadays when competition in their subjects is probably 5-10x more than it was back then (apart from the fact that said images will have been noticed and probably copied many times over). Prices may be higher but it doesn't compensate for the lower volume. About the only exceptions are unique images in low-volume, niche subjects that can just keep going __ but those don't produce a worthwhile income unless you happen to have about 50K of them.

« Reply #66 on: October 04, 2012, 07:19 »
0
I can understand that but it doesnt make much sense, a good file is a good file no matter the age (yes there are subjects like clothes/haircuts that become "obsolete"), what is istock trying to do? satisfy new contributors or regular uploaders? total downloads at istock doesnt mean much thats what we can conclude beside the best match game
Congrats, I'm a bit surprised that your images from 6 years ago are selling just as well now as they were back then.  Mine aren't.

Exactly. How can older images, no matter how good they are, generate the same income nowadays when competition in their subjects is probably 5-10x more than it was back then (apart from the fact that said images will have been noticed and probably copied many times over). Prices may be higher but it doesn't compensate for the lower volume. About the only exceptions are unique images in low-volume, niche subjects that can just keep going __ but those don't produce a worthwhile income unless you happen to have about 50K of them.

if so I dont understand why many top contributors keep on whining when they arent producing enough? does that mean that IS is doing the right thing? same goes for FT lately right? again searches depending on regular uploading, it aint a passive job thats for sure


« Reply #67 on: October 04, 2012, 10:36 »
0
Down 10% to last month, and up 18 to September 2011. Best four: Shutterstock, DepositPhotos,  Zazzle, Photospin

Complete statistic at http://microstockinfos.blogspot.com/2012/10/stock-photography-sales-statistic.html







(This statistic include referral earning at the different agencies)

estionx

  • adrianphotonunez.com

« Reply #68 on: October 04, 2012, 12:43 »
0
September was my best month in the stock, just six months ago I started

bye

lisafx

« Reply #69 on: October 04, 2012, 14:24 »
0
if so I dont understand why many top contributors keep on whining when they arent producing enough? does that mean that IS is doing the right thing? same goes for FT lately right? again searches depending on regular uploading, it aint a passive job thats for sure

I think you are confused Luis.  The "top contributors" who are "whining" are not the people who have hardly uploaded in years.  The "top contributors" by definition, are aware this "ain't a passive job" and have continued to up their games technically and keep uploading regularly. 

In my case, if I am one of the whiners you are talking about, I did admit I haven't uploaded as much this past year as the prior 6.5 years.  Definitely dropping from uploading 1k pictures per year to 500 is a drop, but 1) it is still a fairly consistent effort, and 2) the sales drops started before my production slipped, and were partly responsible for my lowered output.

The point is, when producing at your top capacity still results in drop in income, why knock yourself out? 

OM

« Reply #70 on: October 04, 2012, 19:16 »
0
if so I dont understand why many top contributors keep on whining when they arent producing enough? does that mean that IS is doing the right thing? same goes for FT lately right? again searches depending on regular uploading, it aint a passive job thats for sure

I think you are confused Luis.  The "top contributors" who are "whining" are not the people who have hardly uploaded in years.  The "top contributors" by definition, are aware this "ain't a passive job" and have continued to up their games technically and keep uploading regularly. 

In my case, if I am one of the whiners you are talking about, I did admit I haven't uploaded as much this past year as the prior 6.5 years.  Definitely dropping from uploading 1k pictures per year to 500 is a drop, but 1) it is still a fairly consistent effort, and 2) the sales drops started before my production slipped, and were partly responsible for my lowered output.

The point is, when producing at your top capacity still results in drop in income, why knock yourself out?

I'm not going to whine about what happened at FT but describe what happened to my mini-folio as I get the impression that this happened to a lot of established contributors but on a larger scale. I had 3 top-selling (for me anyway) photo's that suddenly (over a two-week period) stopped selling completely. They didn't decline slowly, they just fell off their twig........zero and haven't sold since. The total sales were 400+, ~150 and ~140 and sold regularly with dl's up until March 2012 (around when FT changed the search).

I wasn't a regular uploader but most uploads went unviewed and unsold anyway which didn't much inspire constant uploading.

Unconvinced by the argument that my 'old' files were dated and that FT justifiably demoted them from the search, I joined SS at the end of June and two of the old FT 'dated rubbish' have become among my best sellers at SS with both subs sales and ODD's. Still not a single sale at FT in that period.

In September I uploaded a small number of new files to FT and SS simultaneously, of which one has become my fastest/best seller at SS with 30+ sales since approval (subs and ODD's). The same image at FT has sold 9 times (all subs) and nearly all the other images in that upnload to FT haven't even been viewed!

From Feb 2008 until March 2012 I was totally exclusive at FT and increased my small portfolio size (200) by 50% from 2009 to 2012.
Here's a quarterly chart of credits earned: Q3 2012 was 65......
 

« Reply #71 on: October 04, 2012, 19:42 »
+1
It sounds like what you need to do at FT is upload a batch, then after a week or 2, delete the non sellers and upload them in the next batch, repeat until they change their system.

Although I think the searches shouldn't be static, it also doesn't make sense to just demote a picture merely because it is older. Something similar to the SS system where an image needs to maintain sales to hold it's position makes sense. It should be about the images, not the contributor, the camera, or the age that determines it's position in the search. Unfortunately it appears that FT, DT, and IS all take those into account.

« Reply #72 on: October 04, 2012, 20:32 »
0
I downloaded the (free) beta of StatsPlus to see what it had to say about my iStock September stats - in particular the supposedly missing cash sales.

It tells me that my downloads are actually 12% above the IS stats and $$ are 15% higher. Not enough to make it a good September but does raise it from disastrous to just rotten :)

This tool worked fine for me except where IS problems mess it up - all the past PP sales are reported with the current date, so if you try stats for today, you'll get really distorted totals (and unfortunately you can't turn the PP off).

I'm not sure, but I think that the cash is shown in the balance, but I have no idea how I'd track that.

Anyway just a thought for those having a cr#ppy month at IS to see if it perhaps isn't quite as bad as they thought. I wish IS would sort out they mess they've made of the site...


Haw haw
FREE BETA
haw haw
just enter you LOGIN and PASS of you IS acc Haha haaahahahahahh ahaha
LOL
Ill maybe do it in afterlife only if there in hell or paradise have some kind of lobotomy drug, and even that I will somehow thing twice, trice....  :o

« Reply #73 on: October 04, 2012, 20:38 »
+2
The economy is not in a bad state. Take a look at the stock indexes.

that's a big part of the problem - financials esp flash trading, deriviatives and other invented 'products' do nothing for the real economy, and the success of these  areas sucks off new college grads in sciences, math, computers etc who otherwise might be doing somthing productive that actually contriibutes to out economy

at the same time the right wing has successfully pushed at the state level to lay off teachers, police, firemen and other essential workers

« Reply #74 on: October 04, 2012, 20:42 »
0
4th BME ever overall, 3 of those this year

IS provides a tiny part of my income - DT & Yay were up this month

continue to hold about +30% over previous 3 mo and 6 mo period from last year


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
26 Replies
7722 Views
Last post October 01, 2007, 18:20
by beisea
27 Replies
6292 Views
Last post October 05, 2009, 14:13
by Mellimage
76 Replies
10545 Views
Last post November 06, 2012, 11:22
by sdeva
33 Replies
5880 Views
Last post January 11, 2013, 01:29
by smarnad
9 Replies
1978 Views
Last post October 10, 2019, 09:31
by steheap

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle