Author Topic: Why am I still in the .25 group? (Read 7102 times)

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #25 on:** April 04, 2017, 02:21 »

Quote from: LDV81 on April 04, 2017, 02:04

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 04, 2017, 01:52
The system is so advantageous to the stock sites that they really don't need to take the risk of messing it up to try to squeeze more cash out of it. The belief in someone doing us down because our wonderful files don't sell as fast as we think they should really strikes me as coming out of the same place as the old complaint that "my image was perfect the reviewers rejected it because they are stupid" - which almost invariably turned out to be wrong.

In order for your theory to work, these guys must get at least SOME sales. If they don't get any sales, the system is not advantageous at all. If they are really so bad, they might use some help in the search results. You contradict yourself, to some extent.

Well, we all know that some odd stuff sells, and so does some stuff that's not very good. I've got examples of my own of both, but if someone wants something and that is all that a search produces then they will probably take it anyway. The sites demand quality that is stellar, a web-site buyer doesn't need something that will look flawless covering the side of the Burj al Khalifa in Dubai. So it's possible to make sales with dodgy stuff but it's hard to make enough to get to a payout in a reasonable time - and if it takes 1,000 people 10 years to get to a $50 payout, then the site is on average sitting on $250,000 of their cash (if my arithmetic is right).

Pauws99 · « **Reply #26 on:** April 04, 2017, 02:31 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 04, 2017, 02:21

Quote from: LDV81 on April 04, 2017, 02:04
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 04, 2017, 01:52
The system is so advantageous to the stock sites that they really don't need to take the risk of messing it up to try to squeeze more cash out of it. The belief in someone doing us down because our wonderful files don't sell as fast as we think they should really strikes me as coming out of the same place as the old complaint that "my image was perfect the reviewers rejected it because they are stupid" - which almost invariably turned out to be wrong.

In order for your theory to work, these guys must get at least SOME sales. If they don't get any sales, the system is not advantageous at all. If they are really so bad, they might use some help in the search results. You contradict yourself, to some extent.
Well, we all know that some odd stuff sells, and so does some stuff that's not very good. I've got examples of my own of both, but if someone wants something and that is all that a search produces then they will probably take it anyway. The sites demand quality that is stellar, a web-site buyer doesn't need something that will look flawless covering the side of the Burj al Khalifa in Dubai. So it's possible to make sales with dodgy stuff but it's hard to make enough to get to a payout in a reasonable time - and if it takes 1,000 people 10 years to get to a $50 payout, then the site is on average sitting on $250,000 of their cash (if my arithmetic is right).

I make that $50,000 or less and its a $35 payout. So if they were all on 34.99 it would be $34,999. Do you mean 1,000 new people each year? If they were at say $20 each then $20,000 income pa but I suspect the majority are a lot less than this.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #27 on:** April 04, 2017, 03:32 »

I get cheques, so my payout is different.

The arithmetic is 35$ x 10 years x 1,000 people / 2 to average out the payments
$350,000/2 = $175,000
That's the average amount of cash the site has in hand throughout any 10-year period as some people get their payout and restart from 0, others are halfway there and still others have almost made it.

Most sites don't do automatic payouts so the unclaimed cash will tend to pile up.

Mind you, it's an equilibrium, so apart from the unclaimed cash, the amount on hand will increase according to the number of contributors, regardless of how long it takes them to reach payout.

I'm not sure,now. The monthly payout clears out everything from big earners - but it's not made until the middle of the month, so there is always 50% of their earnings in hand, anyway. Perhaps there's a reason for that timing.

In fact, the quicker the contributor reaches payout, the sooner the equilibrium leaving 50% of the earnings in hand is reached. Constant addition of low earners will increase the amount of dead money but will tend to skew the average to less than 50%.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #28 on:** April 04, 2017, 03:48 »

"Constant addition of low earners will increase the amount of dead money but will tend to skew the average to less than 50%." ....thats true but I'm not sure we can really come up with a reliable figure. There are no doubt many thousands of small contributors sitting on a few dollars with effectively dormant accounts. I'm not convinced though this is a significant "profit" set against maintaining these accounts. In the case of SS being a public company I'm not sure they could spend this as they wish but it shouldgenerate a few $ interest . They are sitting on a load of $ anyway.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #29 on:** April 04, 2017, 06:10 »

I doubt if there's any legal requirement for companies to keep in cash all the money needed to make future payments to contributors, just as you don't have to keep in hand all the money needed to pay suppliers of other goods - you just need to come up with it when the bill falls due.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #30 on:** April 04, 2017, 06:27 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 04, 2017, 06:10

I doubt if there's any legal requirement for companies to keep in cash all the money needed to make future payments to contributors, just as you don't have to keep in hand all the money needed to pay suppliers of other goods - you just need to come up with it when the bill falls due.

Your probably right but I guess it couldn't appear on the balance sheet as SS cash.....this is turning into an accountancy forum!

JimP · « **Reply #31 on:** April 06, 2017, 16:07 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 04, 2017, 06:10

I doubt if there's any legal requirement for companies to keep in cash all the money needed to make future payments to contributors, just as you don't have to keep in hand all the money needed to pay suppliers of other goods - you just need to come up with it when the bill falls due.

Sorry but the money has to be kept and not used or invested and it's a liability. I'm pretty sure you and the rest here who think it's advantage are wrong. That's why many sites have lowered the payout to get the money owed off the books. Ask an accountant about owed commissions or escrow funds. SS or IS or anybody does not profit from what they hold, and they can't count it as an asset or invest that money.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #32 on:** April 07, 2017, 00:46 »

Quote from: JimP on April 06, 2017, 16:07

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on April 04, 2017, 06:10
I doubt if there's any legal requirement for companies to keep in cash all the money needed to make future payments to contributors, just as you don't have to keep in hand all the money needed to pay suppliers of other goods - you just need to come up with it when the bill falls due.

Sorry but the money has to be kept and not used or invested and it's a liability. I'm pretty sure you and the rest here who think it's advantage are wrong. That's why many sites have lowered the payout to get the money owed off the books. Ask an accountant about owed commissions or escrow funds. SS or IS or anybody does not profit from what they hold, and they can't count it as an asset or invest that money.

Well, that's good to know. I'm not American so I'm not clued up on US business law.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Why am I still in the .25 group? (Read 7102 times)

BaldricksTrousers

Pauws99

BaldricksTrousers

Pauws99

BaldricksTrousers

Pauws99

JimP

BaldricksTrousers

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors