MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: $ 100 000 royalties?  (Read 17357 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 03, 2010, 23:53 »
0
I was looking at this famous picture took by Istock exclusive photographer Eva Serrabassa, I guess she is pretty close to $100 000 commission in 4 years?
(picture downloaded more than 19 000 time)

http://www.istockphoto.com/stock-photo-1921014-wishes.php


vonkara

« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2010, 00:16 »
0
Omg not this picture again. It's everywhere. I will need a microstock positivism cliches therapy soon.

« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2010, 00:22 »
0
he he:) do you agree on the number by the way?

vonkara

« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2010, 00:34 »
0
Let see... I would say an average of 4$ per download. A little bit less than your estimation (80 000$). You should do a poll, then ask her who's winning

« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2010, 00:36 »
0
I gave a bit more since she is exclusive and EL boost $/dl but yes can be lower as well

« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2010, 05:12 »
0
My guessing is she's closer to 30,000 or maybe 40,000, but only she knows the exact amount...

« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2010, 05:14 »
0
Look, mine alreay has one download,lolol
I hope for 80 000 as well  ;D


« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2010, 05:15 »
0
double post

« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2010, 05:53 »
0
No way.  Maybe $25k.

« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2010, 06:08 »
0
80k

« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2010, 06:09 »
0
Who knows how many extra small downloads the image had....

« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2010, 08:41 »
0
That shot has been there forever, so many of the DL were probably early on at the older lower payouts.

Certainly it has some ELs. I have seen it used on product packaging on a major brand electronics item just for starters. I can't count the number of times I have run across it on the web and in print.

We should all be so lucky as to have just ONE shot like this that really takes off  ;D
 

« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2010, 10:30 »
0
Anywhere from 60K to 120K

I'd say about 75K if I was guessing

« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2010, 10:44 »
0
Who knows how many extra small downloads the image had....

and the opposite :P

« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2010, 10:45 »
0
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340.  And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 10:53 by cybernesco »

« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2010, 11:53 »
0
Thanks for your replies, I was a bit optimistic:) but still fantastic results even if 25k:)

« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2010, 13:05 »
0
Istock will probably have made nearly $100K from that image.

vonkara

« Reply #17 on: August 04, 2010, 13:22 »
0
 ^ Yes, true

« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2010, 13:40 »
0
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340.  And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis

This logic is flawed.  I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000.  I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet. 

So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?

No chance.  At all.

« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2010, 14:38 »
0
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340.  And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis

This logic is flawed.  I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000.  I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet. 

So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?

No chance.  At all.

Who's saying 10K? There's an additional 0 in the original thread that you're missing!

I agree that 100K is too high - I'd guess somewhere around the 45K mark would be closer to the mark.

microstockphoto.co.uk

« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2010, 15:01 »
0
$100K is a bit optimistic... however it's a good picture, I like colours - whatever she earned it's well deserved

« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2010, 15:07 »
0
In my case I know for a fact that since August 2005 I averaged .93 per download as a non-exclusive. You could almost double that as an exclusive, if this member has been exclusive the all time which is 1.86 x 19000 =$35340.  And then you would still need to figure the various cannister levels that this member went through as an exclusive, so 20-30K seems a good target. I would say this is max. Certainly not 100K. Denis

This logic is flawed.  I've been averaging well over $3 per download for a while no- assuming that someone is averaging the same and that the downloads are spread evenly for 4 years, you get 5,000 downloads in the past 365...thats 5000 x 3 (and they have a better cannister level) - that alone is $15,000.  I'm pretty sure that the photographer gets more than $3 per download because I'm not even gold yet. 

So you're telling me that 14,000 downloads = $10,000?

No chance.  At all.

My logic is based on over 17200 downloads. On how many downloads are you making your assumption?  Denis
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 15:14 by cybernesco »

« Reply #22 on: August 04, 2010, 15:29 »
0
Istock will probably have made nearly $100K from that image.

That is true.  Istock is certainly highly profitable for the owner(s)
« Last Edit: August 04, 2010, 15:31 by cybernesco »

« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2010, 15:30 »
0
error

alias

« Reply #24 on: August 04, 2010, 16:19 »
0
I agree that 100K is too high - I'd guess somewhere around the 45K mark would be closer to the mark.

$20K-$35K depends on ELs. Probably < $30K. On pure stats I guess that ^SL is on the money.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
5503 Views
Last post November 26, 2006, 01:54
by yingyang0
7 Replies
3537 Views
Last post June 09, 2009, 22:26
by rene
59 Replies
13390 Views
Last post March 10, 2011, 15:05
by djpadavona
10 Replies
2930 Views
Last post May 08, 2011, 19:34
by jamirae
84 Replies
15099 Views
Last post October 07, 2011, 07:32
by sam100

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results