MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: kelby on May 02, 2012, 07:59
-
please take a look to this buyers post
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=1 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=1)
in the last 6 month the price was changed at least 3 times
-
This is just plain stupid. What's the strategy here? Buyers are leaving, so sales drop, so they raise prices to compensate, so more buyers leave, so sales continue to drop, so they raise prices again, so more buyers leave...
How do they not see this as a losing strategy long-term?
-
How do they not see this as a losing strategy long-term?
Imminent sale, maximise price by short term decisions like this.
-
How do they not see this as a losing strategy long-term?
Imminent sale, maximise price by short term decisions like this.
I shouldn't think so, H+F appear to have plunged the company so deeply in debt to repay themselves all that they paid when they bought it that it is probably unsellable. I guess if it goes bust it's no big disaster because they've already recouped their cash and presumably the profits all have to go to paying back the banks but if they can squeeze a bit more out of it and into their coffers, that's good.
-
It's okay, Getty will buy SS soon as it floats and have that as their micro site, IStock will be their midstock offering for exclusives only. Watch the skies.
-
It's okay, Getty will buy SS soon as it floats and have that as their micro site, IStock will be their midstock offering for exclusives only. Watch the skies.
When that happens any sensible person, that doesn't own a factory or does MS just to amuse himself, will pull out of the business
-
It's okay, Getty will buy SS soon as it floats and have that as their micro site, IStock will be their midstock offering for exclusives only. Watch the skies.
could be an interesting future.....but it's impossible
-
It's okay, Getty will buy SS soon as it floats and have that as their micro site, IStock will be their midstock offering for exclusives only. Watch the skies.
Unlikely. SS is getting ready for an IPO: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-shutterstock-ipo-idUSBRE8400PC20120501 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/01/us-shutterstock-ipo-idUSBRE8400PC20120501)
-
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&messageid=6662581 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&messageid=6662581)
-
Amazing. This is the only industry I know where the suppliers bitch about raising prices so they can't make more money.
Let the buyers that are too cheap to spend money on quality images leave...it's not the first time, and won't be the last, that a company has fired it's own customers in order to become more profitable.
-
Well with the latest price rise, I just got an E+ XS sale for $5.60 and a S for $10.60. Are these prices still considered micro?
-
Amazing. This is the only industry I know where the suppliers bitch about raising prices so they can't make more money.
Let the buyers that are too cheap to spend money on quality images leave...it's not the first time, and won't be the last, that a company has fired it's own customers in order to become more profitable.
Well, the buyers do leave. In droves. I think that's the problem.
Not to mention 1) the price rises are often offset by cuts to commissions, so no net gain for contributors, and 2) when disgruntled customers buy less, volume goes down and also offsets the higher prices.
Ultimately, these higher prices don't make most of us more money, they make us less. Hence all the bitching.
-
My sales are so low just now that I can't help wondering if this price rise has sparked a major buyer revolt. Final straw, camel's back stuff. The exclusives seem to feel that we have grabbed all their sales, which I certainly haven't, so what has happened to all the buyers?
-
... Let the buyers that are too cheap to spend money on quality images leave...
But that's the problem - huge swaths of the iStock collection aren't anything special and the price increase is across the board.
I think E+ is now as expensive as Vetta was when it started out. Vetta (before they forced the prices up) was an idea with some sane basis - a curated collection with some criteria for selection at a higher price. The way they introduced it, putting in existing images, thus jacking the price up overnight, wasn't handled well, so buyers got frustrated. The absence of a price slider (and the crappy implementation when they did do one) didn't help, but ignoring those hiccups, the idea of you pay more to get more/better/different was something that buyers could grasp.
With the Getty dreck that got dumped in at high prices (lots of the Agency stuff and EdStock, for example) and absolutely no criteria for E+ other than that the seller felt like it, the connection between price and quality was just so unclear as to be lost.
Buyers who are frustrated with frequent unexplained price increases can leave too - even with a higher budget, if you keep forgetting to respect the buyer's need to plan expenses, they'll get frustrated and go elsewhere. If they can't find quality stuff elsewhere, you may find them stick with you, but that's your gamble. Are you enough better than everyone else to behave horribly and still keep the customers coming?
-
My sales are so low just now that I can't help wondering if this price rise has sparked a major buyer revolt. Final straw, camel's back stuff. The exclusives seem to feel that we have grabbed all their sales, which I certainly haven't, so what has happened to all the buyers?
They're buying from me :)
Not really true, but sales have been good for me lately - not 2010 good but a ton better than the recent past and I have seen lots of my images float to the top of searches and sell (when something starts selling multiple times a day I have gone to search to see it in a great position, so I assume cause and effect).
-
My sales are so low just now that I can't help wondering if this price rise has sparked a major buyer revolt. Final straw, camel's back stuff. The exclusives seem to feel that we have grabbed all their sales, which I certainly haven't, so what has happened to all the buyers?
+1. Same story here.
Congrats JoAnn. Glad someone is seeing some sales at IS.
-
So if the buyers leave iStock, where are they going to go? DT where prices were just raised as well? Shutterstock (didn't they raise prices a few months ago?).
This only has an effect on exclusives...and even they have images elsewhere (i.e. RM collections).
Let the buyers go the cheap route to someplace like Mostphotos. ;)
-
What I think is happening is that iStock is tweaking their mid-tier pricing model once again with the intent of determining the acceptance threshold of the buyers. In doing so they further optimize, define and mature their product offering. I would assume Getty has significant statical analysis in place to monitor sales and download trends that reflect these pricing model changes.
This time of year is their window for such research - pre summer and no major holidays.
Numbers don't lie and Getty knows this. If the results of this change reveals a drop in sales, one can assume Getty will respond accordingly.
I am NOT a fan of Getty for many reasons, but give them credit for being a shrewd business and a leader in the industry.
The concept that they are radically and carelessly squeezing profits which would jeopardize the health of the business, is not one I readily accept.
-
So if the buyers leave iStock, where are they going to go? DT where prices were just raised as well? Shutterstock (didn't they raise prices a few months ago?).
I don't think SS has raised prices in a long time. Haven't they been $249 for a sub for years? And Fotolia hasn't raised prices either. Their base price is 1 credit. Emerald contributors can raise to a base of 2, and above that (only handful of people) can raise to 3 credits. But even those are dropped back to a base of 1 credit after 6 months of no sales.
Not to mention mid level sites like 123RF, Bigstock, Veer, etc. where prices are much more reasonable than Istock.
So to sum up - there are LOTS of options for the disgruntled customers Getty are so eager to dismiss.
-
My sales are so low just now that I can't help wondering if this price rise has sparked a major buyer revolt. Final straw, camel's back stuff. The exclusives seem to feel that we have grabbed all their sales, which I certainly haven't, so what has happened to all the buyers?
I keep wanting to complain about low sales but then I add up the numbers and it doesn't look so bad. For example last month my RPD was $7.20 while the April before it was $4.90.
-
So if the buyers leave iStock, where are they going to go? DT where prices were just raised as well? Shutterstock (didn't they raise prices a few months ago?).
I don't think SS has raised prices in a long time. Haven't they been $249 for a sub for years? And Fotolia hasn't raised prices either. Their base price is 1 credit. Emerald contributors can raise to a base of 2, and above that (only handful of people) can raise to 3 credits. But even those are dropped back to a base of 1 credit after 6 months of no sales.
Not to mention mid level sites like 123RF, Bigstock, Veer, etc. where prices are much more reasonable than Istock.
So to sum up - there are LOTS of options for the disgruntled customers Getty are so eager to dismiss.
...and that's my point. How many of those other agencies do you contribute to? Based on iStock upload procedures, I wouldn't be surprised if your image collection is bigger at those agencies as well (as is the case for most of us that are not exclusive).
There also has to be value involved. These agencies need to learn that they can't compete on price alone. That's been the problem throughout this whole economic slowdown. Think of the price of gas - at what price point will people start driving less and at what point would it make a financial impact to the oil companies?
With relation to Fotolia...there's a reason they no longer represent my work and I really don't understand why people put up with the shell game of earnings levels constantly changing. It's not for me.
-
So if the buyers leave iStock, where are they going to go? DT where prices were just raised as well? Shutterstock (didn't they raise prices a few months ago?).
This only has an effect on exclusives...and even they have images elsewhere (i.e. RM collections).
Let the buyers go the cheap route to someplace like Mostphotos. ;)
It looks more like they want the customers to go to Thinkstock.
Who knows what they think? and they're certainly not going to let the contributors or customers know.
Maybe they're back to 'what's your idea today?' that they seemed to do last year for a while, with a lot of random, unjoined-up changes for no obvious reason and with no over-riding plan/strategy.
-
My sales are so low just now that I can't help wondering if this price rise has sparked a major buyer revolt. Final straw, camel's back stuff. The exclusives seem to feel that we have grabbed all their sales, which I certainly haven't, so what has happened to all the buyers?
I keep wanting to complain about low sales but then I add up the numbers and it doesn't look so bad. For example last month my RPD was $7.20 while the April before it was $4.90.
Wow, I'd earn more if I went exclusive and get that RPD, than I do now, even if the volume of sales would go up as it should go. But then again, you're probably at 35 or even 40% level, with lots of A/V files and E+ as well that you sell in large numbers, so I wouldn't even get half of that RPD. But with sales doubling, I'd get close in bottom line numbers (surely RPD at least doubles if not triples)
-
So if the buyers leave iStock, where are they going to go? DT where prices were just raised as well? Shutterstock (didn't they raise prices a few months ago?).
This only has an effect on exclusives...and even they have images elsewhere (i.e. RM collections).
Let the buyers go the cheap route to someplace like Mostphotos. ;)
It looks more like they want the customers to go to Thinkstock.
Who knows what they think? and they're certainly not going to let the contributors or customers know.
Maybe they're back to 'what's your idea today?' that they seemed to do last year for a while, with a lot of random, unjoined-up changes for no obvious reason and with no over-riding plan/strategy.
That makes sense....Thinkstock as an alternative.
-
So if the buyers leave iStock, where are they going to go? DT where prices were just raised as well? Shutterstock (didn't they raise prices a few months ago?).
This only has an effect on exclusives...and even they have images elsewhere (i.e. RM collections).
Let the buyers go the cheap route to someplace like Mostphotos. ;)
I've no idea where they might have gone. But surely the issue wouldn't be whether or not there have been price rises (though I think you are wrong about shutterstock) but whether there is an endless string of price rises and what the actual price of things is now.
Certainly, if buyers are bothered enough and savvy enough to hunt out files without the little crown on iS to save their pennies, as many exclusives are suggesting, then they are savvy enough to look at the price of an SS subscription or credit package and think to themselves "that will do nicely".
If buyers don't have the wits to find a cheaper alternative, then the exclusives don't need to worry about their files being too expensive.
-
But surely the issue wouldn't be whether or not there have been price rises (though I think you are wrong about shutterstock)
There was a single image sale update on September 29th
http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/updated-royalty-schedule (http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/updated-royalty-schedule)
If I remember correctly, there was also a slight shift in subscription packages around that same time (maybe it was at the higher or lower level package).
-
What I think is happening is that iStock is tweaking their mid-tier pricing model once again with the intent of determining the acceptance threshold of the buyers. In doing so they further optimize, define and mature their product offering. I would assume Getty has significant statical analysis in place to monitor sales and download trends that reflect these pricing model changes.
This time of year is their window for such research - pre summer and no major holidays.
Numbers don't lie and Getty knows this. If the results of this change reveals a drop in sales, one can assume Getty will respond accordingly.
I am NOT a fan of Getty for many reasons, but give them credit for being a shrewd business and a leader in the industry.
The concept that they are radically and carelessly squeezing profits which would jeopardize the health of the business, is not one I readily accept.
My bold.
I'm really surprised that you hold to this view. When even Sean and others are reporting year-on year sales down 30% and earnings down 20% then it makes me think that Istock are desperately chasing profits today at whatever the cost to the business tomorrow.
It's notable that FT has become aware that buyers are price-sensitive in that they are always devising new way of limiting how much their top-ranking contributors can price their own images. It seems obvious that they know that too many high-priced images damages their business.
SS are hardly slouches when it comes to doing business but they are not chasing short-term profits by increasing prices __ not even when they are lining themselves up for an IPO.
-
But surely the issue wouldn't be whether or not there have been price rises (though I think you are wrong about shutterstock)
There was a single image sale update on September 29th
[url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/updated-royalty-schedule[/url] ([url]http://www.shutterstock.com/buzz/updated-royalty-schedule[/url])
If I remember correctly, there was also a slight shift in subscription packages around that same time (maybe it was at the higher or lower level package).
OK, but isn't that just tweaking at the edges? And it's seven months ago. It doesn't compare with two price rises in three months, or is it three rises?
From my experience, businesses understand annual reviews of prices and they understand that companies in businesses with volatile costs - such as transport - may have to make more frequent changes. Nobody I know would understand the argument that "we've just decided to give ourselves a $375,000,000 present and we've just realised last months price rise won't cover the loan, so we've got to raise prices again".
-
SS are hardly slouches when it comes to doing business but they are not chasing short-term profits by increasing prices __ not even when they are lining themselves up for an IPO.
Investors looking at the initial price are going to want to be able to see that there is lots of stuff to squeeze. That may be where they see their growth coming from.
-
SS are hardly slouches when it comes to doing business but they are not chasing short-term profits by increasing prices __ not even when they are lining themselves up for an IPO.
Investors looking at the initial price are going to want to be able to see that there is lots of stuff to squeeze. That may be where they see their growth coming from.
That's not how investors think at all. Fly-by-night speculators think like that and they don't usually last too long in the game. Investors look for long-term steady growth in a business so simple a fool could run it (because sooner or later one probably will). Read Warren Buffett if you want to know how successful investors think.
-
Lol
-
So if the buyers leave iStock, where are they going to go? DT where prices were just raised as well? Shutterstock (didn't they raise prices a few months ago?).
This only has an effect on exclusives...and even they have images elsewhere (i.e. RM collections).
Let the buyers go the cheap route to someplace like Mostphotos. ;)
It looks more like they want the customers to go to Thinkstock.
I think you have hit the nail on the head there Liz. Looking at my March PP downloads vs. Istock downloads, it's 61% vs. 39% in Thinkstock's favor! :o
-
So if the buyers leave iStock, where are they going to go? DT where prices were just raised as well? Shutterstock (didn't they raise prices a few months ago?).
This only has an effect on exclusives...and even they have images elsewhere (i.e. RM collections).
Let the buyers go the cheap route to someplace like Mostphotos. ;)
It looks more like they want the customers to go to Thinkstock.
I think you have hit the nail on the head there Liz. Looking at my March PP downloads vs. Istock downloads, it's 61% vs. 39% in Thinkstock's favor! :o
Why do you find that surprising, sub model is bound to bring in a few times more. If anything, your ratio is good. It's 27,5% vs 72,5% in TS's favour in my case
-
Why do you find that surprising, sub model is bound to bring in a few times more. If anything, your ratio is good. It's 27,5% vs 72,5% in TS's favour in my case
I don't "find that surprising". My emoticon wasn't meant to note that I was surprised that there was a larger number of subs, just that it was a very large difference (more than 60/40).
And the reason that's concerning to me is that, unlike you, I was around when ALL those sales would have been at Istock, and I would have made thousands of dollars more on them at Istock than I did on TS.
I see no real overall increase in sales, if I take the two numbers together, to indicate that I am getting more downloads in total. Just a shifting of the numbers from Istock to TS, where I make considerably less money. Make sense now?
-
I does. Because you explained the emoticon ;D . And I had in mind what you wrote in the 2nd paragraph, I just didn't mention it, because it's only logical (at least to me) that you'd worry about it because of that and that you view the ratio differently then most of us
-
I does. Because you explained the emoticon ;D . And I had in mind what you wrote in the 2nd paragraph, I just didn't mention it, because it's only logical (at least to me) that you'd worry about it because of that and that you view the ratio differently then most of us
Yeah, it was great being around in the glory days, but only serves to remind how much things have changed now ;)
-
What I think is happening is that iStock is tweaking their mid-tier pricing model once again with the intent of determining the acceptance threshold of the buyers. In doing so they further optimize, define and mature their product offering. I would assume Getty has significant statical analysis in place to monitor sales and download trends that reflect these pricing model changes.
This time of year is their window for such research - pre summer and no major holidays.
Numbers don't lie and Getty knows this. If the results of this change reveals a drop in sales, one can assume Getty will respond accordingly.
I am NOT a fan of Getty for many reasons, but give them credit for being a shrewd business and a leader in the industry.
The concept that they are radically and carelessly squeezing profits which would jeopardize the health of the business, is not one I readily accept.
My bold.
I'm really surprised that you hold to this view. When even Sean and others are reporting year-on year sales down 30% and earnings down 20% then it makes me think that Istock are desperately chasing profits today at whatever the cost to the business tomorrow.
It's notable that FT has become aware that buyers are price-sensitive in that they are always devising new way of limiting how much their top-ranking contributors can price their own images. It seems obvious that they know that too many high-priced images damages their business.
SS are hardly slouches when it comes to doing business but they are not chasing short-term profits by increasing prices __ not even when they are lining themselves up for an IPO.
Not all buyers are that price sensitive. The Getty strategy is to pitch products like TS and Photos.com at the buyers which aren't going to pay the higher prices & to market IS at a market which isn't as price-sensitive, and partly on the basis that you can't get the images anywhere else.
At the moment we're seeing lots of shifts in the best match sort order. It looks like they're trying to work out what formula extracts the maximum return. In the short term, the gains & losses of sales will be more from these changes than buyers coming or going.
Fotolia has always been aggressive on price, so its natural that along the way they've picked up many of the buyers that are most price sensitive.
-
Not all buyers are that price sensitive. The Getty strategy is to pitch products like TS and Photos.com at the buyers which aren't going to pay the higher prices & to market IS at a market which isn't as price-sensitive, and partly on the basis that you can't get the images anywhere else.
At the moment we're seeing lots of shifts in the best match sort order. It looks like they're trying to work out what formula extracts the maximum return. In the short term, the gains & losses of sales will be more from these changes than buyers coming or going.
Fotolia has always been aggressive on price, so its natural that along the way they've picked up many of the buyers that are most price sensitive.
I don't think Getty are anything like as clever as you give them credit for. Don't forget that they screwed up their business, when they were a public company, to the point that the shareholders were grateful to sell out cheap to H&F.
Have you read S&P's latest report on Getty (thanks to JoAnne) here?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/idUSWNA250820120314 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/idUSWNA250820120314)
S&P give Getty a credit rating of BB- which places them in the middle between the terms 'Non-investment grade speculative' and 'Highly speculative'. In other words they don't have much faith in the way the business is being run or it's prospects.
Btw, FT don't appear to be doing terribly well either, judging by the reports on here and their own actions. The winner out of all these price increases and commission cuts is actually Shutterstock __ by a country mile.
-
They dont care one bit.
-
And yet ANOTHER E+ increase today -- an E+ is now triple (or slightly more for some sizes) that of a non-E+. Wasn't the last one just six weeks or so ago? This has to be the fourth one this year, IIRC.
-
And yet ANOTHER E+ increase today -- an E+ is now triple (or slightly more for some sizes) that of a non-E+. Wasn't the last one just six weeks or so ago? This has to be the fourth one this year, IIRC.
How far can they push it? Even if someone has unique models, there will be various cut-off ponts where a buyer will 'satisfice' with a cheaper photo, whether it's an E or an indie.
I'm glad I didn't go mad on promoting pics to E+ as some people seem to have done.
Still wish exlusives could choose to demote certain of our pics to be on a par with indie prices.
-
please take a look to this buyers post
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=1[/url])
in the last 6 month the price was changed at least 3 times
... yep, make that 4
-
Great! Still hoping for indie price increase and P+ too. I'd easily sell some (a handful) of my files at double prices at the same pace (or not much lower, but earnings would increase significantly)
-
please take a look to this buyers post
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=1[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=343279&page=1[/url])
in the last 6 month the price was changed at least 3 times
... yep, make that 4
it would be so cool if they deal with bugs as fast as they raise prices :D
-
What bugs?
-
What bugs?
donīt know when was the last one but I believe there were a few in the past no? we forget quite fast true..
-
I can't remember one since last summer...
-
I can't remember one since last summer...
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/bug-images-not-showing-on-istock/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/bug-images-not-showing-on-istock/)
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-new-list-of-bugs/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-new-list-of-bugs/)
and I remember the RC bug too when they went to 0, also I believe we dont need to talk about the migration to thinkstock
-
What bugs?
donīt know when was the last one but I believe there were a few in the past no? we forget quite fast true..
List of old, unfixed bugs carried forward into June:
Contributor preference to show location and member name as opposed to real name is being reset for some contributors, along with adult filter preference. See here for example. 31Mar12
Royalties & stats not adding up on the E+ page. E+ royalty numbers listed on the E+ page are incorrect. For example, sjlocke has an image with 500+ E+ downloads, supposedly, for an E+ total royalty of $26.00 . Also, there are no dates for last exclusive+ download. Clicking on sales number does not link to anything also. KJ
The downloads numbers, royalties and other stats displayed may vary according to which page you check them e.g. the my_uploads page may differ from the portfolio page, which may differ from the file's close up page etc. Example here
Subscription Royalties & delayed royalties showing errors in download figures e.g. this one showing 65535 delayed royalties. KJ
RSS feed links missing .php - leading to hanging pages - details here KJ
The zoom function appears broken for older Illustrations - which appear like this KJ
Some contributors unable to add images to E+ collections examples here , here and here. Further details of E+ page issues here
Several users reporting they are having to sign in many times each day. KJ
Site mails and forum posts being truncated - possibly a WYSIWYG issue - e.g. this post KJ
Resubmitted images are losing their Model Releases - long running issue. KJ
Non Latin alphabet characters causing problems in caption and image description boxes, so any punctuation marks such as apostrophes, ampersands & umlauts etc can cause rest of text to be truncated. e.g. here and a little more info here. Referral mail personal message field also can't handle thesel characters and on the received mail it shows a "?" instead. Ref# KJ-35
Forum subscribe/unsubscribe - These two options are backwards.Ref# PH-9
Moo cards - not able to upload files to order cards. Ref #JG-16
-
I can't remember one since last summer...
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/bug-images-not-showing-on-istock/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/bug-images-not-showing-on-istock/[/url])
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-new-list-of-bugs/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-new-list-of-bugs/[/url])
and I remember the RC bug too when they went to 0, also I believe we dont need to talk about the migration to thinkstock
The first thread is from May, but I did forget about RC not showing. Still nothing that would affect our earnings and RCs really aren't important in the first month of the year, the targets aren't even set yet (that's an issue for me, not those small bugs). But those bugs are nothing compared to SS's (images not searchable and shown in our ports, not to mention absurd rejections)
-
just seen a bug, total royalties for the picture, its down to 0
-
just seen a bug, total royalties for the picture, its down to 0
Been like this for a week. :(
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=344265&page=1#post6689573 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=344265&page=1#post6689573)
You can see the amount via MyUploads, though.
-
just seen a bug, total royalties for the picture, its down to 0
Been like this for a week. :(
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=344265&page=1#post6689573[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=344265&page=1#post6689573[/url])
You can see the amount via MyUploads, though.
yep but that doesnīt include PP right?
-
just seen a bug, total royalties for the picture, its down to 0
I guess I've missed that as well, since I use greasemonkey script, that is really helpful, no need to open each file to see what were the latest royalties
(http://i50.tinypic.com/3480olt.jpg)
-
just seen a bug, total royalties for the picture, its down to 0
Been like this for a week. :(
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=344265&page=1#post6689573[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=344265&page=1#post6689573[/url])
You can see the amount via MyUploads, though.
yep but that doesnīt include PP right?
Haven't a clue, but I guess not.
-
SS, your message reminded me I hadn't ordered my Moo cards for this year yet. Just ordered. It went through without any glitches.
What bugs?
donīt know when was the last one but I believe there were a few in the past no? we forget quite fast true..
List of old, unfixed bugs carried forward into June:
Contributor preference to show location and member name as opposed to real name is being reset for some contributors, along with adult filter preference. See here for example. 31Mar12
Royalties & stats not adding up on the E+ page. E+ royalty numbers listed on the E+ page are incorrect. For example, sjlocke has an image with 500+ E+ downloads, supposedly, for an E+ total royalty of $26.00 . Also, there are no dates for last exclusive+ download. Clicking on sales number does not link to anything also. KJ
The downloads numbers, royalties and other stats displayed may vary according to which page you check them e.g. the my_uploads page may differ from the portfolio page, which may differ from the file's close up page etc. Example here
Subscription Royalties & delayed royalties showing errors in download figures e.g. this one showing 65535 delayed royalties. KJ
RSS feed links missing .php - leading to hanging pages - details here KJ
The zoom function appears broken for older Illustrations - which appear like this KJ
Some contributors unable to add images to E+ collections examples here , here and here. Further details of E+ page issues here
Several users reporting they are having to sign in many times each day. KJ
Site mails and forum posts being truncated - possibly a WYSIWYG issue - e.g. this post KJ
Resubmitted images are losing their Model Releases - long running issue. KJ
Non Latin alphabet characters causing problems in caption and image description boxes, so any punctuation marks such as apostrophes, ampersands & umlauts etc can cause rest of text to be truncated. e.g. here and a little more info here. Referral mail personal message field also can't handle thesel characters and on the received mail it shows a "?" instead. Ref# KJ-35
Forum subscribe/unsubscribe - These two options are backwards.Ref# PH-9
Moo cards - not able to upload files to order cards. Ref #JG-16
-
Should Getty buy SS, they will do it for one purpose only! So! have an educated guess?
-
To have a real sub site, one that works and brings in a ton of cash? (besides all well known reasons they were buying agencies for) Well now that they went public, it's a lot easier for Getty to acquire them.
-
... Well now that they went public, it's a lot easier for Getty to acquire them.
They haven't gone public, just filed with the SEC saying they intend to. After the mess of the Facebook IPO they may postpone.
-
... Well now that they went public, it's a lot easier for Getty to acquire them.
They haven't gone public, just filed with the SEC saying they intend to. After the mess of the Facebook IPO they may postpone.
Oh? I thought I saw someone posting something in the line that they in fact have gone through with it. Silly me, there would have been a thread with dozen of pages by now (I read it about a week ago)
-
To have a real sub site, one that works and brings in a ton of cash? (besides all well known reasons they were buying agencies for) Well now that they went public, it's a lot easier for Getty to acquire them.
It only works before they buy it. Once they buy, it will be just like the rest of the mess. And messes don't bring in a ton of cash. Just like StockXpert.
-
To have a real sub site, one that works and brings in a ton of cash? (besides all well known reasons they were buying agencies for) Well now that they went public, it's a lot easier for Getty to acquire them.
It only works before they buy it. Once they buy, it will be just like the rest of the mess. And messes don't bring in a ton of cash. Just like StockXpert.
Well it was about the intention ;D
-
Noticed that the USD price has been increased slightly for illustrations today. 25 USD files are now 27 and 35 USD files are now 36. Guess they most have lost another bunch of buyers... :-\ I'm getting more and more stressed out by the price raises. They can't compensate less sales with price raises forever... zero buyers, zero dollars. :(
Just wish the other agencies would follow and start raising their prices soon. iStock's prices are actually quite reasonable except for all the weird collections, and most of the other agencies' prices are too low.
-
Noticed that the USD price has been increased slightly for illustrations today. 25 USD files are now 27 and 35 USD files are now 36. Guess they most have lost another bunch of buyers... :-\ I'm getting more and more stressed out by the price raises. They can't compensate less sales with price raises forever... zero buyers, zero dollars. :(
Just wish the other agencies would follow and start raising their prices soon. iStock's prices are actually quite reasonable except for all the weird collections, and most of the other agencies' prices are too low.
If I were exclusive, I would share your worries about these price rises chasing customers away. However, to suggest other sites follow Istock's lead seems pointless. Other sites are not looking for ways to drive their buyers away, but to attract and retain them.
-
Noticed that the USD price has been increased slightly for illustrations today. 25 USD files are now 27 and 35 USD files are now 36. Guess they most have lost another bunch of buyers... :-\ I'm getting more and more stressed out by the price raises. They can't compensate less sales with price raises forever... zero buyers, zero dollars. :(
Just wish the other agencies would follow and start raising their prices soon. iStock's prices are actually quite reasonable except for all the weird collections, and most of the other agencies' prices are too low.
If I were exclusive, I would share your worries about these price rises chasing customers away. However, to suggest other sites follow Istock's lead seems pointless. Other sites are not looking for ways to drive their buyers away, but to attract and retain them.
Based on sales the last few months I would say iStock is overly successful in driving buyers away whether it's due to price increase, best match, zoom tool, price slider, whatever. One more month for me to see if they can at least show some sign of righting the ship and, if not, I jump ship.
-
Noticed that the USD price has been increased slightly for illustrations today. 25 USD files are now 27 and 35 USD files are now 36. Guess they most have lost another bunch of buyers... :-\ I'm getting more and more stressed out by the price raises. They can't compensate less sales with price raises forever... zero buyers, zero dollars. :(
Just wish the other agencies would follow and start raising their prices soon. iStock's prices are actually quite reasonable except for all the weird collections, and most of the other agencies' prices are too low.
If I were exclusive, I would share your worries about these price rises chasing customers away. However, to suggest other sites follow Istock's lead seems pointless. Other sites are not looking for ways to drive their buyers away, but to attract and retain them.
Is the correct answer. As Oringer pointed out just the other day;
Oringer: "We've been concentrating mostly on growth. We spend a lot on marketing. This pace of content creation and consumption is not going to stop."
Every price increase by Istock is just assisting Oringer's ambitions. High-fives all round in the SS offices.
http://news.investors.com/technology-tech-exec-qanda/030413-646625-shutterstock-stock-photos-sell-as-internet-revs.htm?ven=yahoocp,yahoo&p=2 (http://news.investors.com/technology-tech-exec-qanda/030413-646625-shutterstock-stock-photos-sell-as-internet-revs.htm?ven=yahoocp,yahoo&p=2)
-
good to see price increases from IS. it's rather silly to be happy selling your work for as low as you can on sites such as SS just to get a sale. the company may be cashing in, the shareholders reaping the rewards, but the contributors sell themselves very short.
-
Ultimately, these higher prices don't make most of us more money, they make us less. Hence all the bitching.
Yes.
But there's an educational value in all that : buyers must realize producing commercial images is not cheap as chips.
Try asking designers a 20% discount and all hell would break loose.
-
Amazing. This is the only industry I know where the suppliers bitch about raising prices so they can't make more money.
Let the buyers that are too cheap to spend money on quality images leave...it's not the first time, and won't be the last, that a company has fired it's own customers in order to become more profitable.
Fully agree.
And buyers always menace to leave but they've nowhere to hide !
There's nothing cheaper than microstock unless they're happy with photos stolen from Flickr or FB, in that case they're no more buyers but just leechers and should not be considered part of our business or potential clients.
A design firm ranting and raving about having to pay the princely sum of 5$ for an image, are we joking or what ? Some buyers should seriously find another job and leave space to professional firms who knows how to sell their crap and value the costs of photography accordingly.
I see some "designers" asking 1000$ for a 3 pages websites where they spent maybe an afternoon to make the whole site and 30$ in stock images, and yet they complain images are TOO EXPENSIVE, sorry buy i cant feel any simpathy for such greedy assh...
-
Talking about web site design, i'm finishing a web site for a relative of mine, it's amazing how much the use of images is the MOST important factor in modern design, i've now a very nice corporate web site up and running in front of me and if had to take off the images it would be a meaningless unattractive unprofessional page with some text nobody would bother to read.
One would think being this the typical scenario images should be priced and valued accordingly, and yet all we're witnessing is a race to the very bottom.
Oh and by the way, i ask my relative to provide me a nice photo with him and his business partners to be used in the About Us page, he told me they've no money to pay a photographer doing corporate portraits so they will be fine using a generic stock image or a using their iPhones ?
Now, why corporate photography is perceived as expensive and highly respected while the stock images in their web site are seen as cheap rubbish to patch holes between text and articles ?
Sorry, all this cannot go on forever, cheap buyers and designers had it too easy for too long.
-
This pace of content creation and consumption is not going to stop."
I seem to have heard this before. Dot com bubble, house prices in Spain, US property, there's always someone who believes that growth can be unlimited, and there are always suppliers who are happy to go along with the fantasy, whilst being shafted by those they praise.
-
There is also the fact that many central banks are printing money which makes the price of everything rise. I went to MacDonald's last week for the first time in 3 years. The price of a big Mac was $8.60 AUD. I was shocked as the last time it was around $6. Then I though about some of my images selling for $2 and felt a bit discouraged.
-
There is also the fact that many central banks are printing money which makes the price of everything rise. I went to MacDonald's last week for the first time in 3 years. The price of a big Mac was $8.60 AUD. I was shocked as the last time it was around $6. Then I though about some of my images selling for $2 and felt a bit discouraged.
The cost of living in Australia has gone through the roof over the last few years. Interesting report on the BBC's 'From Our Own Correspondent';
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21519050 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21519050)
Australian microstockers must have been particularly hard hit as the $US has devalued hugely relative to AUD and local prices have increased.
-
Yep, printing money to solve financial crises, what can possibly go wrong? :P
-
There is also the fact that many central banks are printing money which makes the price of everything rise. I went to MacDonald's last week for the first time in 3 years. The price of a big Mac was $8.60 AUD. I was shocked as the last time it was around $6. Then I though about some of my images selling for $2 and felt a bit discouraged.
hahaha.
it looks i was a prophet when years ago i kept saying microstockers would make more money grilling burgers !
-
There is also the fact that many central banks are printing money which makes the price of everything rise. I went to MacDonald's last week for the first time in 3 years. The price of a big Mac was $8.60 AUD. I was shocked as the last time it was around $6. Then I though about some of my images selling for $2 and felt a bit discouraged.
The cost of living in Australia has gone through the roof over the last few years. Interesting report on the BBC's 'From Our Own Correspondent';
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21519050[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21519050[/url])
Australian microstockers must have been particularly hard hit as the $US has devalued hugely relative to AUD and local prices have increased.
Yes, we had a good run a few years ago when the US dollar was .65c but now we're down to eating beans. To make matters worse I pay more in tax than I live on. The average house where I live is $500,000.
-
If I were exclusive, I would share your worries about these price rises chasing customers away. However, to suggest other sites follow Istock's lead seems pointless. Other sites are not looking for ways to drive their buyers away, but to attract and retain them.
Yeah... the problem is that the contributors get screwed at the same time.
This could easily be avoided by not selling at the cheap sites and thus forcing buyers to sites that pay us what we deserve. An on demand license sold at VectorStock for a lousy dollar is a lost sale at iStock for 25 dollars. It annoys me that even the really professional artists and photographers are uploading their stuff to the cheap sites... it's suicide in the long run.
I don't really understand why Shutterstock is so popular amongst contributors either... what's so great about getting 25 cents for a sale? It doesn't matter if the subcription model means more sales... it's still a very bad deal for the contributor. The subscription sites are killing us.
Well, well. Just a little afternoon whining from me.
-
If I were exclusive, I would share your worries about these price rises chasing customers away. However, to suggest other sites follow Istock's lead seems pointless. Other sites are not looking for ways to drive their buyers away, but to attract and retain them.
Yeah... the problem is that the contributors get screwed at the same time.
This could easily be avoided by not selling at the cheap sites and thus forcing buyers to sites that pay us what we deserve. An on demand license sold at VectorStock for a lousy dollar is a lost sale at iStock for 25 dollars. It annoys me that even the really professional artists and photographers are uploading their stuff to the cheap sites... it's suicide in the long run.
I don't really understand why Shutterstock is so popular amongst contributors either... what's so great about getting 25 cents for a sale? It doesn't matter if the subcription model means more sales... it's still a very bad deal for the contributor. The subscription sites are killing us.
Well, well. Just a little afternoon whining from me.
where have you been all this time? you need to check the earnings report here more often, contributors do from 35% to 60% of their income at SS, what is your bright advice? shall we dump SS and be happy with iStock?
ahhh I understand, you want SS down so iStock is UP, actually you should know better perhaps your options...
-
I don't really understand why Shutterstock is so popular amongst contributors either... what's so great about getting 25 cents for a sale? It doesn't matter if the subcription model means more sales... it's still a very bad deal for the contributor. The subscription sites are killing us.
Maybe it's because I haven't had a 25c sale at SS since early 2007? I do regularly get sales that small and less at IS ... but not at SS.
-
I'm very new to stock, in that I've only been a contributor for a couple of months and I've never even bought a single image/vector before that. (Any stock that I worked with in the past as a designer were always already provided) I'm also a hobbyist. My first reaction to the state of the industry when I first entered, though, was that everything was too darn cheap. As much as iStock's been the center of controversy, I do think that their pricing is fair. (except for the fact that they give 15% - 20% to non-ex)
I remember being flabbergasted at Vectorstock's pricing at first, at how certain vectors that would easily be priced at 12 to 15 credits at iStock are easily bought at 1 credit there. I was initially very apprehensive about uploading there as I thought it could hurt sales on iStock, but I found this to be largely irrelevant since many stick with whatever agencies their employers chose. Since then, I've put stuff up on Vectorstock and it's been giving me decent returns, covering for its low pricing with relatively high volume. (If I had the same number of average sales on Vectorstock imposed onto iStock and its pricing, I could pretty much drop one of my two jobs.)
I don't like that it's cheap. But the way I see it, that's the way the industry is moving towards, and it's very quickly becoming the norm. I think it's all about dealing and adapting.
-
I don't like that it's cheap. But the way I see it, that's the way the industry is moving towards, and it's very quickly becoming the norm. I think it's all about dealing and adapting.
No, actually that's where we were. We should be moving away from that.
-
I'm very new to stock, in that I've only been a contributor for a couple of months and I've never even bought a single image/vector before that. (Any stock that I worked with in the past as a designer were always already provided) I'm also a hobbyist. My first reaction to the state of the industry when I first entered, though, was that everything was too darn cheap. As much as iStock's been the center of controversy, I do think that their pricing is fair. (except for the fact that they give 15% - 20% to non-ex)
I remember being flabbergasted at Vectorstock's pricing at first, at how certain vectors that would easily be priced at 12 to 15 credits at iStock are easily bought at 1 credit there. I was initially very apprehensive about uploading there as I thought it could hurt sales on iStock, but I found this to be largely irrelevant since many stick with whatever agencies their employers chose. Since then, I've put stuff up on Vectorstock and it's been giving me decent returns, covering for its low pricing with relatively high volume. (If I had the same number of average sales on Vectorstock imposed onto iStock and its pricing, I could pretty much drop one of my two jobs.)
I don't like that it's cheap. But the way I see it, that's the way the industry is moving towards, and it's very quickly becoming the norm. I think it's all about dealing and adapting.
But it COULD work differently. If everybody just left VectorStock (for instance) the site would die and buyers would have to go elsewhere and pay more. But I guess the whole discussion is pointless because it will never happen anyway... ;) Tens of thousands of contributors would have to boycott the same sites at the same time.
I don't like that it's cheap. But the way I see it, that's the way the industry is moving towards, and it's very quickly becoming the norm. I think it's all about dealing and adapting.
No, actually that's where we were. We should be moving away from that.
Amen to that.
-
I went to MacDonald's last week for the first time in 3 years. The price of a big Mac was $8.60 AUD. I was shocked as the last time it was around $6. Then I though about some of my images selling for $2 and felt a bit discouraged.
The difference is that McDonald's can only sell that Big Mac once, whereas your images sell over and over.
-
I don't like that it's cheap. But the way I see it, that's the way the industry is moving towards, and it's very quickly becoming the norm. I think it's all about dealing and adapting.
No, actually that's where we were. We should be moving away from that.
too bad that is just not the reality we live in (not being sarcastic)
-
Yeah... the problem is that the contributors get screwed at the same time.
This could easily be avoided by not selling at the cheap sites and thus forcing buyers to sites that pay us what we deserve. An on demand license sold at VectorStock for a lousy dollar is a lost sale at iStock for 25 dollars. It annoys me that even the really professional artists and photographers are uploading their stuff to the cheap sites... it's suicide in the long run.
I don't really understand why Shutterstock is so popular amongst contributors either... what's so great about getting 25 cents for a sale? It doesn't matter if the subcription model means more sales... it's still a very bad deal for the contributor. The subscription sites are killing us.
Well, well. Just a little afternoon whining from me.
I agree, but it's tough because there aren't a lot of places for people to turn. I've worked hard cleaning up my own house, but there are still a lot of messes. So while I got rid of IS, FT, 123 and Vectorstock, I still have sites like SS because I still have bills to pay. I've been lucky though because I've had sites step up to the plate as I left others, although I did have some pretty down months at first.
That said, I don't think that is an option for most people. Most people are just as stuck at SS as exclusives are stuck at IS. They can break out, but it basically means rebuilding everything and no guarantee they will recover their income. It's a shame because I think it is a much more realistic goal to sell 500 images a month at a $10 RPD than to sell 5000 images a month at a $1 RPD.
-
Another sample of good education from our friend Pieman. Hard to believe that Istock allows this kind of behavior. Totally unprofessional.
----------------------------------
Posted By imgendesign:
Istock should really raise those prices up a bit. $36? Why not $40. $27? make it $30, it's nice and round. That way they can make sure ALL of the customers we have left go looking for other sites that are cheaper and run smoother.
----------------------------
Lobo
Posted 5 mins ago
Quote
I'll run this up the chain to see if we can make this a priority! Thanks for the great idea! I will make sure we get people on this immediately. It's comments like this that help us continue to make sure our contributors are heard!
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule. I know you didn't have to do us this great favor but because you have I will name my new bamboo plant after you. I hope you don't mind if I shorten it's name, as it's name tag will only allow for 5 characters due to the fact that I use bubble letters for all my name tags.
-
Lobo
Posted 5 mins ago
Quote
I'll run this up the chain to see if we can make this a priority! Thanks for the great idea! I will make sure we get people on this immediately. It's comments like this that help us continue to make sure our contributors are heard!
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule. I know you didn't have to do us this great favor but because you have I will name my new bamboo plant after you. I hope you don't mind if I shorten it's name, as it's name tag will only allow for 5 characters due to the fact that I use bubble letters for all my name tags.
is Lobo aware that such a comment to a customer would make him fired on the spot in any other normal company ?
why nobody writes to istock's CEO ? i can't believe Getty is employing such an unprofessional employee.
-
Lobo
Posted 5 mins ago
Quote
I'll run this up the chain to see if we can make this a priority! Thanks for the great idea! I will make sure we get people on this immediately. It's comments like this that help us continue to make sure our contributors are heard!
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule. I know you didn't have to do us this great favor but because you have I will name my new bamboo plant after you. I hope you don't mind if I shorten it's name, as it's name tag will only allow for 5 characters due to the fact that I use bubble letters for all my name tags.
is Lobo aware that such a comment to a customer would make him fired on the spot in any other normal company ?
why nobody writes to istock's CEO ? i can't believe Getty is employing such an unprofessional employee.
They're not. He's a contractor, not an employee.
-
I thought he was just responding to an ironic/sarcastic post in kind.
-
I thought he was just responding to an ironic/sarcastic post in kind.
It seems like pouring gasoline on a fire, but I guess there aren't really consequences since most contributors are flame retardant. ;)
-
why nobody writes to istock's CEO ? i can't believe Getty is employing such an unprofessional employee.
They're not. He's a contractor, not an employee.
Not to mention Istock hasn't had a CEO in years ;)
-
I don't like that it's cheap. But the way I see it, that's the way the industry is moving towards, and it's very quickly becoming the norm. I think it's all about dealing and adapting.
No, actually that's where we were. We should be moving away from that.
It's not just that the price went up too much, it's compounded by reducing the payment % to most contributors. How do you raise prices and the reduce commissions. Not a very good long term strategy for keeping contributors and buyers happy.
-
Shutterstock 81.9
iStock 37.8
exclusive 276.3
I dont know but it seems IS is gaining and SS is losing compared to last month. SS is falling further and further. IS seems quite stable IMO.
Or I am missing something.
-
Or I am missing something.
What you might be missing is that the iStock exclusive numbers may represent a smaller number of more successful suppliers. We don't know how many votes each number represents, so we can't tell much about trends. We may assume the Shutterstock number represents a large number of votes, and will be less susceptible to variations. (We may assume that, but we can't be sure.)
-
Maybe Leaf can comment?
-
I'd be interested in seeing average portfolio size at IS for independents versus exclusives. Just a guess but I bet the exclusives in general have much larger portfolios.
-
Shutterstock 81.9
iStock 37.8
exclusive 276.3
I dont know but it seems IS is gaining and SS is losing compared to last month. SS is falling further and further. IS seems quite stable IMO.
Or I am missing something.
I think this is more that the poll results for exclusives get posted until mid-month last month. The number was something like 216 when it was first posted and climbed to 280 or so over about a week. Until the system is around for a couple of months and more IS exclusives come to vote, I think the data is going to be a bit unreliable.
If you look at the poll results graph http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?page=PollResults (http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?page=PollResults) you can see that SS has been in an uptrend over the last year and IS for independents in a down trend. We don't yet have a graph to compare IS exclusives to, so I'm not ready to make any conclusions.
ETA a link to an old thread where Leaf weighs in on the issue of poll results with few votes.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-easy-is-it-to-rig-the-msg-earnings-poll/msg227394/ (http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/how-easy-is-it-to-rig-the-msg-earnings-poll/msg227394/) Note that the graphical results for the poll came after this thread.
-
I shouldnt have included the exclusives. 82 is really low for SS, it used to be 95-98
-
.
-
I shouldnt have included the exclusives. 82 is really low for SS, it used to be 95-98
Ah! I understand now. I do think part of it is that February is a short month, so the number is going to be a little bit lower naturally. But the rest of it, I don't know how to explain.
-
I'd be interested in seeing average portfolio size at IS for independents versus exclusives. Just a guess but I bet the exclusives in general have much larger portfolios.
You may be right in general. In my case, though, I had pretty much exactly the same content and number of images on all sites, until I deactivated 1,000 leading up to D-Day.
-
I'd be interested in seeing average portfolio size at IS for independents versus exclusives. Just a guess but I bet the exclusives in general have much larger portfolios.
You may be right in general. In my case, though, I had pretty much exactly the same content and number of images on all sites, until I deactivated 1,000 leading up to D-Day.
Isn't there a minimum number of sales required just to apply for exclusivity? Seems to me that newer contributors with smaller ports would almost certainly be independent. At least to start. Therefore the average earnings on the left would be lower for the other sites. It would be more interesting to compare earnings for indies versus exclusives if we had an average port size to use in the comparisons.
-
So what? A contractor job is not a lifetime position and can be (should have been) terminated
Lobo
Posted 5 mins ago
Quote
I'll run this up the chain to see if we can make this a priority! Thanks for the great idea! I will make sure we get people on this immediately. It's comments like this that help us continue to make sure our contributors are heard!
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule. I know you didn't have to do us this great favor but because you have I will name my new bamboo plant after you. I hope you don't mind if I shorten it's name, as it's name tag will only allow for 5 characters due to the fact that I use bubble letters for all my name tags.
is Lobo aware that such a comment to a customer would make him fired on the spot in any other normal company ?
why nobody writes to istock's CEO ? i can't believe Getty is employing such an unprofessional employee.
They're not. He's a contractor, not an employee.
-
.
-
Really, though there is no way of making an accurate comparison. Some people cull their non-selling files after so long, so their RPI would be much higher than those who left everything up. (Unless they could actually remember how many they'd deleted from where).
There are so many imponderables, the most important being the actual content of ports, otherwise you're comparing apples with oranges. If apples are more popular, my port of 20 apples might outperform your port of 100 oranges.
Also there's acceptance policy.
Let's say you have a port with subjects A, B, C, D, E which sell moderately at site 1.
Site 2 however, isn't interested in subjects B, D and E, so will reject them.
Clearly that means buyers of subjects B, d and E will son lean not to bother with site 2.
Or it could be that both agencies take all, but competition in subjects A and D is much fiercer on one site.
photos/vectors/other/mixture
Or ...
So IMO, comparison charts are only for fun and vague interest, and don't give any useful help to those pondering what to do with their files.