when you calculate the commissions on SS why everybody take in account the subscription sales?? the subs. are fixed. take in account only OD, EL, S&O.. the commissions there is between 20-30%. In case of EL's  the real commission can be even 50%.

know the "nobody" who has an RPD of 33 cents and have seen the stats.  I agree in the future they will get more than 14% but that doesn't change what they are getting now.

Your analysis is flawed.  Let me try to explain where you went wrong, using my own sales results from last month.

Dividing my income from SS in December by the number of downloads, I get an average revenue of .63.  Assuming SS brings in an average of $2.05 per sale, that means my royalty rate is 30%.

But that's not quite true.  I had some referral income, which has nothing to do with my sales.  Take that out and my average drops to .59, with a royalty rate of 28%.

Some of that income came from extended licenses.  Remove that and I'm down to .57 per download.  That's 27% of $2.05, but of course that $2.05 average includes extended licenses.  So the SS revenue per download without extended licenses is somewhere below $2.05.  But let's keep going.

I had single downloads.  Take them out and I'm at .46.  And I had on-demand downloads.  Remove them and my average is .38.  Not surprising since we've eliminated everything except subscription downloads and .38 is what I get for every one of those.

If I compare that .38 to Shutterstock's 2.05, I would be at an 18% royalty.  But of course I'm not; that 2.05 includes an average number of on-demand and single and enhanced downloads.  Granted, my average for those things isn't going to match the site's as a whole.  Maybe I do better than average; maybe I do worse.  But if all I had were subscription downloads, I would need to compare that to Shutterstock's average revenue per download just for their subscription customers.  That will be a whole lot less than 2.05.  Maybe half that, probably even less.

I'd be willing to bet that nobody gets a 14% royalty at SS, or the 18% I calculated.  Different products have different margins, which gives them different royalty rates.

,

Wish I'd seen what you'd written before you deleted it.

I hope it was "Sorry everyone. I was talking a load of boll*cks, about a subject of which I know practically nothing. I apologise for wasting the time of those who do understand the issue and who have had to correct my misleading and erroneous posts".

Quote from: traveler1116 on January 01, 2013, 16:23

,

Wish I'd seen what you'd written before you deleted it.

I hope it was "Sorry everyone. I was talking a load of boll*cks, about a subject of which I know practically nothing. I apologise for wasting the time of those who do understand the issue and who have had to correct my misleading and erroneous posts".

I wish you would reply like that sometimes

Quote from: sharpshot on January 01, 2013, 19:14

Quote from: gostwyck on January 01, 2013, 18:35

Quote from: traveler1116 on January 01, 2013, 16:23

,

Wish I'd seen what you'd written before you deleted it.

I hope it was "Sorry everyone. I was talking a load of boll*cks, about a subject of which I know practically nothing. I apologise for wasting the time of those who do understand the issue and who have had to correct my misleading and erroneous posts".

I wish you would reply like that sometimes

Prove me wrong on any point I've made and I'd be happy to do so. I'm always just trying to get to the truth.

With completely unnecessary rude comments. Another member gone. Serious dude, take a chill pill every now and then. Or dont post when you are hitting the sauce.

Not quite, I deleted it because I thought I'd let it go since it doesn't really matter to me but nothing I said was misleading or erroneous.  I used to enjoy this forum, unfortunately not so much anymore.  I guess I'm not alone since a lot of the really talented and helpful people that used to post here don't anymore.  Oh well happy new year.

Yes it was. Totally. You made up 'facts' in order to support your ridiculous hypothesis. I'm really sorry if you found being caught out to be 'not enjoyable' in your forum experience. Quite frankly, my own forum experience would be tremendously improved if people like you wouldn't spread ridiculous myth and nonsense, particularly regarding subjects of which they have no personal experience. It would also save me time.

What do you want in a 'forum' anyway? Why do you come to MSG? Do you want to discuss what is really going on in microstock or do you just want to spread your own misconceived theories without anybody challenging them? If so then MSG is probably not your natural home. Get your facts straight and talk about what you actually understand and you'll be just fine on MSG.

Quote from: Poncke on January 01, 2013, 19:26

With completely unnecessary rude comments. Another member gone. Serious dude, take a chill pill every now and then. Or dont post when you are hitting the sauce.

To be honest mate I'm not at all bothered about people who just invent stuff, to support their bizzarre theories, choosing to 'disappear' when they get quite fairly challenged on them. It's for the best. 

Cast your mind back and remember that our hapless contributor, who doesn't actually contribute to SS, was trying to claim that they paid as little as 14%. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong and they shouldn't be able to spread such lies on MSG. That's not what MSG is for IMHO.

Yes, but we can do that with normal arguments, I think. We dont have to upset people in the process. And imo I dont think the OP meant to spread lies, he just seem confused. 

Sorry things seem to be getting out of hand lately and several members are leaving. This thread went wildly off topic when we began debating Shutterstock's royalties.  I do agree with the folks who have taken the time to explain why they are much higher than 14%. 

But I'm with JoAnn - I don't know why everything's turning into a pissing contest lately.  Is it that people are extra sensitive during the holidays, or are the thumbs down arrows making people touchy?  Is it too much for people when they see a post of theirs get a lot of -1 arrows?

Quote from: gostwyck on January 01, 2013, 20:14

Quote from: Poncke on January 01, 2013, 19:26

With completely unnecessary rude comments. Another member gone. Serious dude, take a chill pill every now and then. Or dont post when you are hitting the sauce.

To be honest mate I'm not at all bothered about people who just invent stuff, to support their bizzarre theories, choosing to 'disappear' when they get quite fairly challenged on them. It's for the best. 

Cast your mind back and remember that our hapless contributor, who doesn't actually contribute to SS, was trying to claim that they paid as little as 14%. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong and they shouldn't be able to spread such lies on MSG. That's not what MSG is for IMHO.

Yes, but we can do that with normal arguments, I think. We dont have to upset people in the process. And imo I dont think the OP meant to spread lies, he just seem confused.

yes confused for the 10th time

Everything sells well with iStock if you are an exclusive. Thats the problem.
The greenhouse effect so to speak.

or we can say... that istock pays a high price for having exclusives, and opposite:
The exclusives pay the highest price.

These days, as for NOW, when I look at shutterstock images, they so far surpas istock, both by relevancy and quality.
The buyers wont pay for old frames and dust and hear say in happy communities.

55c is fine if you get a few thousand of them. If you want "non-laughable" returns of dozens or hundreds of dollars for every sale you shouldn't be in microstock, should you?

I just wish you will as soon as possible drop the contract with iStock and start selling your work on other sites.

Of course the only fly in the ointment with this wish is that it's a lot harder to do for established exclusives, unless they are prepared for a year or two of financial hardship. I have 2nd hand experience of three people dropping exclusivity, 2 of them returned to IS exclusivity after 6 and 9 months respectively.
Their experience was an immediate drop of income at IS, dropping by approximately 75%. These were people on 35 and 40% at IS. They found the extra income at SS and other sites wasnegligible, compared with lost income from IS. Now it's obvious that someone starting on the bottom rung at SS is going to have a long hard climb to get a decent revenue stream, perhaps 2 years or more, and even then it's possible their income might not reach IS levels. The people in question had families and mortgages/rent to pay, had become used to a four figure weekly (dollar) income, that was decimated by giving up exclusivity. It ain't that easy! Everyone's experience is different, if you're only making, say, $200 a month at IS, it's a nice bit of pocket money but your family won't suffer if you give up on IS, that's great, if I was in that position, i'd be off like a shot, as would many others, but I know my income would take an almighty hit that would be unaffordable for me. The people who returned to IS exclusivity also lost out as their income didn't return to previous levels either, having received some sort of best match hit.

Why would you need to ask the question? Do you think it accurately reflects the true worth of your images? If 'yes' then it's respectable. If 'no', then it's not.