Author Topic: IS New exclusive earnings rating ??? (Read 14079 times)

enstoker · « **on:** February 13, 2013, 04:31 »

What is this 216.2

Maybe will be better if we also know 2011 or 2012 numbers.
My photo friends (exclusives) have ALL big selling drops.
About non exclusives I really do not want to talk - last weak almost nothing nada zero.

And still 34.7 ?

Microbius · « **Reply #1 on:** February 13, 2013, 04:36 »

As far as I can work out the smaller number is for non exclusives, the higher for exclusives.

So the equivalent to the big number would be adding up all the sites you contribute to as an indie.

mattdixon · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2013, 05:28 »

According to the poll indies are about $20% up on exclusives.

Tiosabas · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:12 »

I dont see an option to submit istock exclusive poll results on the poll page.

Tiosabas · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:13 »

Does/should that include GI sales?

leaf · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:29 »

Quote from: Microbius on February 13, 2013, 04:36

As far as I can work out the smaller number is for non exclusives, the higher for exclusives.

So the equivalent to the big number would be adding up all the sites you contribute to as an indie.

exactly

leaf · « **Reply #6 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:30 »

Quote from: Tiosabas on February 13, 2013, 07:12

I dont see an option to submit istock exclusive poll results on the poll page.

If you only fill in data for iStock the poll will assume you are exclusive.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:33 »

Quote from: Tiosabas on February 13, 2013, 07:13

Does/should that include GI sales?

IMO it should, because that's money I only have access to because of being iS exclusive.

However by the time it comes round (week 3 in the month for the previous month) I've lost the link to the poll.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:37 »

It seems to suggest that if you are exclusive, your iStock income is seven times higher than it would be if you were independent. That's a pretty impressive set of handcuffs (but is Sean in there, skewing the figures?)

Microbius · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2013, 07:56 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 13, 2013, 07:37

It seems to suggest that if you are exclusive, your iStock income is seven times higher than it would be if you were independent. That's a pretty impressive set of handcuffs (but is Sean in there, skewing the figures?)

That's what I was saying, to get the indie income you need to add the 34.7 for IS+ 87.5 for SS etc.

So indie comes out just above exclusive

ETA ooops, gotta stop posting without reading properly, ignore the first part of this post. I'll leave it there so as not to mask my illiteracy

Yes, it does imply IS earnings are that much higher, but bear in mind that you have to meet certain criteria to go exclusive, which will skew stuff e.g. 250 downloads, a minimum 50% approval rating

rubyroo · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2013, 08:02 »

@ Tyler

I hate to ask you to do anything extra, as you already do so much, but I imagine this query about the exclusive number will just repeat over and over ad infinitum as new people see the list -unless you nip it in the bud.

Is it possible to have an 'Indie Total' number added for an immediate comparision?

Batman · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2013, 08:03 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 13, 2013, 07:37

It seems to suggest that if you are exclusive, your iStock income is seven times higher than it would be if you were independent. That's a pretty impressive set of handcuffs (but is Sean in there, skewing the figures?)

This will change good time to be watching. your right.

Microbius · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2013, 08:08 »

Quote from: rubyroo on February 13, 2013, 08:02

@ Tyler

I hate to ask you to do anything extra, as you already do so much, but I imagine this query about the exclusive number will just repeat over and over ad infinitum as new people see the list -unless you nip it in the bud.

Is it possible to have an 'Indie Total' number added for an immediate comparision?

Problem is that all the indies will have different sites on their list, with different portfolio sizes on each.

mattdixon · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2013, 08:11 »

Quote from: rubyroo on February 13, 2013, 08:02

@ Tyler

Is it possible to have an 'Indie Total' number added for an immediate comparision?

Really good idea, it will be a hot topic this year.

Why isn't Alamy on the indy list, they must be middle to lower tier surely?

ShadySue · « **Reply #14 on:** February 13, 2013, 08:13 »

Quote from: Microbius on February 13, 2013, 08:08

Quote from: rubyroo on February 13, 2013, 08:02
@ Tyler

I hate to ask you to do anything extra, as you already do so much, but I imagine this query about the exclusive number will just repeat over and over ad infinitum as new people see the list -unless you nip it in the bud.

Is it possible to have an 'Indie Total' number added for an immediate comparision?

Problem is that all the indies will have different sites on their list, with different portfolio sizes on each.

You can never have a direct comparison.
Different sizes of ports.
Different number of sites.
Hours spent indie vs excl.
Content of port (lots of high demand images vs lots of niche, lower demand images)
Medium/media (e.g. can't really compare a predominantly vector port with a predominantly photo port)

rubyroo · « **Reply #15 on:** February 13, 2013, 08:15 »

Quote from: Microbius on February 13, 2013, 08:08

Problem is that all the indies will have different sites on their list, with different portfolio sizes on each.

Yes, true. It wouldn't enable us to see how the figures are made up exactly - but I thought at least it would give a comparison of how things stack up overall, while preventing further misunderstanding about that big, lone figure.

Edited for clarity.

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #16 on:** February 13, 2013, 08:34 »

Quote from: Microbius on February 13, 2013, 08:08

Problem is that all the indies will have different sites on their list, with different portfolio sizes on each.

So what? The "different portfolio sizes" is already part of the agency earnings rating.

You could still add up the individual poll result for each contributor and get a rating for the overall income. Would still help put things in perspective about indie total vs exclusive ratings.

mattdixon · « **Reply #17 on:** February 13, 2013, 08:46 »

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on February 13, 2013, 08:34

You could still add up the individual poll result for each contributor and get a rating for the overall income. Would still help put things in perspective about indie total vs exclusive ratings.

Or just total up the Agency figures showing up on the left (including iStock indy) and put a category at the top 'Agencies combined' with it's earning rating - treat the total like a separate Agency. Simples :-)

rubyroo · « **Reply #18 on:** February 13, 2013, 08:49 »

Yes. That's what I meant Matt. I've only just realised that I might have been misunderstood. Thanks for your clarity there.

Tiosabas · « **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2013, 08:52 »

Maybe include Decembers GI sales in the poll for January since we recieve it Jan? I know thats a bit skewed but it makes sense to include GI sales since it can be significant portion of income even if it is quite irregular.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #20 on:** February 13, 2013, 09:13 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 13, 2013, 07:37

It seems to suggest that if you are exclusive, your iStock income is seven times higher than it would be if you were independent. That's a pretty impressive set of handcuffs (but is Sean in there, skewing the figures?)

I've never done it. Never really knew what the poll was about, actually...

leaf · « **Reply #21 on:** February 13, 2013, 09:16 »

Quote from: Tiosabas on February 13, 2013, 08:52

Maybe include Decembers GI sales in the poll for January since we recieve it Jan? I know thats a bit skewed but it makes sense to include GI sales since it can be significant portion of income even if it is quite irregular.

yeah that's what I do. Any money I get in January (no matter when the sale actually happened or which partner program it came from) I consider January income.

You can always get to the poll with the link at the top. Polls > Submit Vote

@Sean.. well now that you're 'free' you may find the polls a little more useful than you used to.

leaf · « **Reply #22 on:** February 13, 2013, 09:16 »

Quote from: mattdixon on February 13, 2013, 08:46

Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on February 13, 2013, 08:34
You could still add up the individual poll result for each contributor and get a rating for the overall income. Would still help put things in perspective about indie total vs exclusive ratings.

Or just total up the Agency figures showing up on the left (including iStock indy) and put a category at the top 'Agencies combined' with it's earning rating - treat the total like a separate Agency. Simples :-)

Yeah, that seems like a good solution.

rubyroo · « **Reply #23 on:** February 13, 2013, 09:19 »

Great.

Thanks so much Tyler.

mattdixon · « **Reply #24 on:** February 13, 2013, 09:27 »

Quote from: leaf on February 13, 2013, 09:16

Quote from: mattdixon on February 13, 2013, 08:46
Quote from: MichaelJayFoto on February 13, 2013, 08:34
You could still add up the individual poll result for each contributor and get a rating for the overall income. Would still help put things in perspective about indie total vs exclusive ratings.

Or just total up the Agency figures showing up on the left (including iStock indy) and put a category at the top 'Agencies combined' with it's earning rating - treat the total like a separate Agency. Simples :-)

Yeah, that seems like a good solution.

Cool, thanks Tyler.

Sorry don't mean to hassle you but is it worth adding Alamy to the Polls and Agency list? They might make a statistical difference over time.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: IS New exclusive earnings rating ??? (Read 14079 times)

enstoker

Microbius

mattdixon

Tiosabas

Tiosabas

leaf

leaf

ShadySue

BaldricksTrousers

Microbius

rubyroo

Batman

Microbius

mattdixon

ShadySue

rubyroo

MichaelJayFoto

mattdixon

rubyroo

Tiosabas

Sean Locke Photography

leaf

leaf

rubyroo

mattdixon

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors