Quote from: tickstock on August 09, 2013, 18:54

A few years ago the average exclusive was making $30,000 per year (or $2500/month) so lots of exclusives now have their income under represented in the poll.

Where do you get that figure and how are you working it out?

When iStockStats was working (preRCs), for a long time I was always around position 1880-5 in downloads. That was among all contributors, not just exclusives, and at that time there were said to be IIRC something around 4000-5000 exclusives. So I'd say that put me a bit above the average for exclusives for downloads. The top people would be earning much more, but some of the top downloaded togs were indies, just like now.
I can assure you that as an apparent 'average' exclusive at the time, I was earning quite a bit less than half of that.

So, where are you getting the 'average exclusive was earning $2500pm' figure from? No doubt a very few at the top were earning more than that, but I doubt very much if even the 'average earned by exclusives' was anything like that.

From the yearly poll here, should be about the same people answering the monthly poll so I chose that group.   I meant it to be the average of people that participate on MSG, all the numbers would be much lower if you took into account people that uploaded 1 image in 2005 and never thought about it again.  Your numbers would be for the median contributor not the average.

I guess only Leaf knows, and maybe even he doesn't, the number of iStock exclusives who participate in the monthly polls and annual questionnaire; and possibly whether it's been the same people for several years.

It's all moot anyway because it's about amount earned, not profit. Most of the people at the top have expensive shoots. Turnover is vanity; profit is sanity.

Ok you don't trust the poll and if you did trust it you think the numbers are meaningless anyway.  I guess you should try not to pay much attention to it then.   Until everyone sends you their tax filings I think this is the closest you're going to get to useful numbers to compare.

Quote from: tickstock on August 10, 2013, 18:40

Quote from: ShadySue on August 10, 2013, 18:37

Quote from: tickstock on August 09, 2013, 18:54

A few years ago the average exclusive was making $30,000 per year (or $2500/month) so lots of exclusives now have their income under represented in the poll.

Where do you get that figure and how are you working it out?

When iStockStats was working (preRCs), for a long time I was always around position 1880-5 in downloads. That was among all contributors, not just exclusives, and at that time there were said to be IIRC something around 4000-5000 exclusives. So I'd say that put me a bit above the average for exclusives for downloads. The top people would be earning much more, but some of the top downloaded togs were indies, just like now.
I can assure you that as an apparent 'average' exclusive at the time, I was earning quite a bit less than half of that.

So, where are you getting the 'average exclusive was earning $2500pm' figure from? No doubt a very few at the top were earning more than that, but I doubt very much if even the 'average earned by exclusives' was anything like that.

From the yearly poll here, should be about the same people answering the monthly poll so I chose that group.   I meant it to be the average of people that participate on MSG, all the numbers would be much lower if you took into account people that uploaded 1 image in 2005 and never thought about it again.  Your numbers would be for the median contributor not the average.

How utterly ridiculous. That's the most laughable 'extrapolation' of a tiny, non-representative, self-selecting, non-verifiable piece of 'data' I have ever had the misfortune to observe.

So apparently a lot of people find that the poll has NO reason to exist (because they don't like the results of it maybe?).  If the poll contains no data then perhaps we should ask Leaf to get rid of it.  I think you are misreading what I'm saying also, there is no extrapolation.  I'm talking just about this small group of contributors who participate on MSG and fill out the poll.   I would rather compare myself to a selfselected group of contributors that are active in this industry, I don't see it being beneficial to look at the 75%(or whatever number) of contributors that are not active.  That group is not representative of me and doesn't add anything to my understanding of the business.

The point of that statement of mine was that $2500/month was too low of a maximum because according to the yearly poll the average exclusive made that much.  Setting the maximum at the average seems to me to keep the number lower than it should be.

And here is what I was talking about:  http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-income-vs-portfolio-size/

Well, I would consider myself a fairly "average" exclusive, but like ShadySue, I don't make anywhere near $2500/month on iStock, and even my BME isn't close.

I suspect it's a case where the sample size and variation is such that the average isn't very representative;  it is likely skewed by a few very high earners against a large number of moderate sellers.  I would think the median figure given in the poll, $12,405/annum, is much closer to the experience for most of us.  Certainly it's a lot more like mine.

There are a lot of people doing it full time and $12,000 is nowhere near enough for a full time living so I'm pretty sure there are many people making more than that.

Quote from: tickstock on August 11, 2013, 16:03

Quote from: Gannet77 on August 11, 2013, 12:50

Well, I would consider myself a fairly "average" exclusive, but like ShadySue, I don't make anywhere near $2500/month on iStock, and even my BME isn't close.

I suspect it's a case where the sample size and variation is such that the average isn't very representative;  it is likely skewed by a few very high earners against a large number of moderate sellers.  I would think the median figure given in the poll, $12,405/annum, is much closer to the experience for most of us.  Certainly it's a lot more like mine.

There are a lot of people doing it full time and $12,000 is nowhere near enough for a full time living so I'm pretty sure there are many people making more than that.

Gosh! Thanks for that. You really know how to do your research don't you? At the risk of paraphrasing you, "I'm pretty sure" that you haven't got a * clue what you are talking about!

You are just pulling numbers, any numbers, out of the air and using them to support your hilarious and absurd assumptions about the obviously failing Istockphoto and the income of their unfortunate and gullible exclusives, of which sadly, you are one (but probably not for too much longer).

So if my own numbers, the monthly poll, and the yearly polls aren't acceptable which numbers do you take to be ok?  It sounds to me like you just dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your assumptions.

So if my own numbers, the monthly poll, and the yearly polls aren't acceptable which numbers do you take to be ok?  It sounds to me like you just dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your assumptions.

No. I'm only dismissing your 'numbers' that are based on nothing at all. If I drove down a road and happened to see 2 rabbits and one cow, by your assumptions, there therefore must be twice as many rabbits as cows in the world. Even more bizarrely, you've even managed to extrapolate, supposedly, how much the average rabbit must be earning! Are you really so stupid that you don't appreciate that you can't actually multiply bananas by coconuts to work out how apples per square metre you will need to tile your bathroom? That's how ridiculous your extrapolations are.

Quote from: gostwyck on August 11, 2013, 18:16

Quote from: tickstock on August 11, 2013, 17:05

So if my own numbers, the monthly poll, and the yearly polls aren't acceptable which numbers do you take to be ok?  It sounds to me like you just dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your assumptions.

No. I'm only dismissing your 'numbers' that are based on nothing at all. If I drove down a road and happened to see 2 rabbits and one cow, by your assumptions, there therefore must be twice as many rabbits as cows in the world. Even more bizarrely, you've even managed to extrapolate, supposedly, how much the average rabbit must be earning! Are you really so stupid that you don't appreciate that you can't actually multiply bananas by coconuts to work out how apples per square metre you will need to tile your bathroom? That's how ridiculous your extrapolations are.

I understand your thing is to try to be as insulting as possible in order to get a rise out of people, once again your first impulse is to resort to name calling.  I can only assume you are a sad, pathetic, jealous old man.

if you started your "career" in stock photography as a rank amateur by entering in the microstock world with little to no experience (the overwhelming majority of microstock photographers) and use the argument clause of the 'trads' and 'closed shop', then yes i see a developed pattern of bitterness and jealousy by many on these forums (more so from certain continual complainers) as they have more or less it their plateau. i think we all have choices, and if your choice is to be non-exclusive so be it, this might be the only way to make it worthwhile within the ranks by squeezing pennies from multiple microstock agencies.
however, if you are a developed and/or truly professional photographer and consistently create good stock worthy images that the market demands, then there is not one reason that i can think of why one would not be exclusive and make dollars from one or two carefully selected options.
for me exclusivity works wonders. i can place my second tier images on IS, some of which make it onto GI and i can also submit directly to GI. i can double dip and make a great living doing so.
i made it as a 'trad' in the 'closed shop' and anyone can provided they have the skill to do so, and for those that don't, well there is always multiple micros and endless complaining...
this will most certainly piss a few people off and reward me with countless -1, -2, etc, but ain't the truth a b!tch.


 

Quote from: tickstock on August 11, 2013, 19:41

I never dismissed you.  From what I remember I agreed with you that it wouldn't make sense for you to go exclusive.  There are lots of people that it probably doesn't make sense for, I think that's clear.  I can't remember ever, even once, saying that everyone (or even most people) should be exclusive.

Actually, you kinda did. I mentioned that I make only 5% of my microstock income from istock and there's no way I'd make up the difference by being exclusive, and you suggested that with Vetta and the increased earnings percentage, it might be possible.

In reality I think we both know it was just wishful thinking on your part that it is even remotely possible that anyone could make up the missing 95%. People have reported nice gains from going exclusive, but a jump of 20x current earnings? Come on.

If that's not dismissing the fact that I'd be worse off as an exclusive, I'm not sure what is.

Actually you said there was no possible way the math would work out and I gave a scenario where it would, I didn't say you would make that, just that it was mathematically possible.  Especially now look at the difference in pricing between an XXXL non exclusive and an XXXL Vetta, it's 23 times more and add to that the increase in royalty % and you're at 30x.  I'm not saying all your content would be made Vetta, just that it is a mathematical possibility which you said it wasn't.  Hopefully this cleared up your misunderstanding a little.
ETA my own estimate for how much I would lose at Istock by going nonexclusive is over 90%.

Actually you said there was no possible way the math would work out and I gave a scenario where it would, I didn't say you would make that, just that it was mathematically possible.  Especially now look at the difference in pricing between an XXXL non exclusive and an XXXL Vetta, it's 23 times more and add to that the increase in royalty % and you're at 30x.  I'm not saying all your content would be made Vetta, just that it is a mathematical possibility which you said it wasn't. 

Since the collections change farce, it seems that only the 'in crowd' get their files made Vetta or S+ - there are a lot of complaints about it over on the iS forums. So if you are already in that group, fair enough; but it's unlikely a new 'real' exclusive would get these promotions. The new faux-exclusives have their own deal.
So mathematically possible, maybe, but very hypothetical.
Then there's the question as to whether your one's higher-priced files would sell.
Your personal experience doesn't appear to be the norm for posters here or over there; I accept that there are plenty of iS exclusives at all points on the scale who don't post to forums.

Quote from: ShadySue on August 12, 2013, 05:22

Since the collections change farce, it seems that only the 'in crowd' get their files made Vetta or S+ - there are a lot of complaints about it over on the iS forums. So if you are already in that group, fair enough; but it's unlikely a new 'real' exclusive would get these promotions. The new faux-exclusives have their own deal.
So mathematically possible, maybe, but very hypothetical.
Then there's the question as to whether your one's higher-priced files would sell.
Your personal experience doesn't appear to be the norm for posters here or over there; I accept that there are plenty of iS exclusives at all points on the scale who don't post to forums.

I'm certainly not part of any 'in-crowd' at iStock but I'm still getting a few Vettas and S+ images in.

It feels like the Vetta / S+ criteria has returned to normal (i.e. your best images in great light of interesting subjects) to me.

Since they removed the Vetta limits I'm also bolder in selecting images to be judged for those collections too.

None of this diminishes any of the other problems there, but I don't think this is one.

Interesting, and looking at latest uploads by Vetta, there is a wider range or contributors featured than when the Collections first started, e.g. as reported here:
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=354349&page=43
I was going by some posts I'd read in the exclusive forum by people who had Vettas before not getting V or S+ now. I haven't nominated a file since April 2010, haven't uploaded since 7 July and have only uploaded 'markers' since early May.

Quote from: ShadySue on August 12, 2013, 05:22

Since the collections change farce, it seems that only the 'in crowd' get their files made Vetta or S+ - there are a lot of complaints about it over on the iS forums. So if you are already in that group, fair enough; but it's unlikely a new 'real' exclusive would get these promotions. The new faux-exclusives have their own deal.
So mathematically possible, maybe, but very hypothetical.
Then there's the question as to whether your one's higher-priced files would sell.
Your personal experience doesn't appear to be the norm for posters here or over there; I accept that there are plenty of iS exclusives at all points on the scale who don't post to forums.

I'm certainly not part of any 'in-crowd' at iStock but I'm still getting a few Vettas and S+ images in.

It feels like the Vetta / S+ criteria has returned to normal (i.e. your best images in great light of interesting subjects) to me.

Since they removed the Vetta limits I'm also bolder in selecting images to be judged for those collections too.

None of this diminishes any of the other problems there, but I don't think this is one.

I'm not in any in crowd either.   I've actually held off on uploading most of my new content for a couple of months and focused more on creating work for when things get fixed. 

Shady I haven't heard how new exclusives files are getting treated, when they changed the collections they automatically moved up files that sold a lot. 

Actually you said there was no possible way the math would work out and I gave a scenario where it would, I didn't say you would make that, just that it was mathematically possible.  Especially now look at the difference in pricing between an XXXL non exclusive and an XXXL Vetta, it's 23 times more and add to that the increase in royalty % and you're at 30x.  I'm not saying all your content would be made Vetta, just that it is a mathematical possibility which you said it wasn't.  Hopefully this cleared up your misunderstanding a little.
ETA my own estimate for how much I would lose at Istock by going nonexclusive is over 90%.

Mathematically possible? Sure, fine. But I'm not running my business on long-shot remote possibilities.

It still seems like it is your belief that it is possible that anyone, even someone like me with so low of a percentage of my income coming from istock, can do better with the crown. And yet everything I've seen and heard tells me that it is impossible my earnings would multiple by 20x if I were exclusive. Have you ever heard of a case where someone's income jumped that much when they became exclusive? The best I've ever heard of is folks reporting 3x or 4x previous earnings.

I just think it's kind of funny that you'll call other people dismissive when it is pretty clear you aren't really open to any beliefs and assumptions other than your own.