MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: Serge.Black on June 08, 2012, 09:58
-
Istockcharts was closed, we made our table with the statistics of the authors Istockphoto.
http://www.microstocktime.com/tool/stats/is/ (http://www.microstocktime.com/tool/stats/is/)
Welcom!
Total Statictics:
- There are 78 453 authors in the base in all.
- The size of the base is: 10 899 022 works.
- Total sales: 123 553 923 +
-
Great work! Thanks for posting.
-
Thanks for making this Serg!
I notice that, unlike Istockcharts, the default setting lists the contributors in order of portfolio size, rather than sales statistics. It's nice to view stats in order to track our sales progress relative to other contributors. I don't see a way to order your chart that way... *Never mind. I just figured it out. Very useful!*
I appreciate all the work you've put into this and I am sure it will provide some valuable info.
-
Table Count SALES - it's a reference - can be sorted by sales.
In general, you can sorted of the portfolio, sales, customer rating.
On the right is the filters, they will see only the exclusive authors and writers over the levels of sales: base, bronze, etc...
-
But if I sort by sales, then search, it defaults back to ordering by portfolio size... or is it just my browser setup?
-
When looking at the table displays the portfolio - this sort on the default. I think the line number in the search at all is not important.
-
Thank you very much for putting this together.
-
*Never mind. I just figured it out. Very useful!*
Pls share that info, I can't see where I fit in regarding sales and getting just the info on where I fit in by size doesn't help/interest me
-
Click on the top of the sales column to resort
-
Click on the word "Sales" at the top of the sales column on the first page. It changes to ordered by sales.
Oh, I do see the problem Gannett77 pointed out. If you reorder by sales, then search for your name, it defaults back to portfolio size. I don't know if there's a workaround for that, other than sorting by sales, and then going page by page until you find yourself.
-
nice job :D
I remember that istock charts had around 35k contributors, your stats show 78k ??
-
Click on the word "Sales" at the top of the sales column on the first page. It changes to ordered by sales.
Oh, I do see the problem Gannett77 pointed out. If you reorder by sales, then search for your name, it defaults back to portfolio size. I don't know if there's a workaround for that, other than sorting by sales, and then going page by page until you find yourself.
Exactly, I need that stat. Lol good one, a 3 second task for you, I don't wanna grow old before I find myself :) . And there's footy on the telly too, no time ;)
-
I remember that istock charts had around 35k contributors, your stats show 78k ??
Yes, we have about 78k authors. have such a number has at least one photo or illustration.
-
Great tool, thanks a lot !
How often does it does index itself ?
-
This is great! Thank you!
-
I remember that istock charts had around 35k contributors, your stats show 78k ??
Yes, we have about 78k authors. have such a number has at least one photo or illustration.
I know we've talked about this before, and it's true for all the agencies: there is a huge portion of the contributor base that doesn't actually contribute much and doesn't do much in sales.
If you sort by portfolio size, the top 1,000 contributors have 1906+ images, at 5K it's 488+, 10K 197+ and 40K 11+. On that last page of 50 (up to 40K), all the start dates were April - June 2008. Someone must have written an article about how much money you can make selling images :)
If you sort by sales, the top 1K are 25K+ (Contributor 1013 is the first gold in the list). At 5K it's 3.5K+, at 10K it's 1K+, at 20K 200+ and 40K 20+
In other words, 78K contributors may be the literal total, but only about 5,000 are really in the game. I know there are some new contributors just starting out, but any of them who are active will be in the top 10,000 contributors by portfolio size (197+ images) pretty quickly. So we can just ignore 68K of those contributors when looking at where the collection is coming from and the top 5,000 make the bulk of the sales.
-
^^ Which means the vast majority have never and will never reach pay-out !
IS is making millions out of interest alone...
-
^^ Which means the vast majority have never and will never reach pay-out !
IS is making millions out of interest alone...
No, we've been through this many times before. The cost of administrating non-performing contributors will likely be higher than the benefit from having them. The total 'gain' is also chickenfeed, probably less than 0.1% of annual sales, and the money owed will forever remain in the liability column not as an asset.
-
I don't find myself in the list.... ;D
-
I don't find myself in the list.... ;D
Here you're
http://www.microstocktime.com/tool/stats/is/search/#2005690 (http://www.microstocktime.com/tool/stats/is/search/#2005690)
827 Smithore
-
^^ Which means the vast majority have never and will never reach pay-out !
IS is making millions out of interest alone...
No, we've been through this many times before. The cost of administrating non-performing contributors...
... is next to nothing. the net is going towards a pricepoint of zero for storage space f.e. ... you get more storage with a free mailbox, than what expensive comps had 15 years ago.
-
It's really a great job! Thanks for sharing!
BTW, I can't find my data when I searched by my name, but I find it based on the size of my portfolio finally.
-
^^ Which means the vast majority have never and will never reach pay-out !
IS is making millions out of interest alone...
No, we've been through this many times before. The cost of administrating non-performing contributors...
... is next to nothing. the net is going towards a pricepoint of zero for storage space f.e. ... you get more storage with a free mailbox, than what expensive comps had 15 years ago.
The cost is not storage. It's the up-front administration costs of approving/rejecting tens of thousands of contributor applications, reviewing possibly millions of crappy images the vast majority of which will not be stock oriented or ever sell and also dealing with all the inane emails to CR that probably result.
-
Nice tool. Thank you for doing this!! :)
-
Smithore, the site is case sensitive. If you didn't use capital "S", you won't find your ID.
I don't find myself in the list.... ;D
-
^^ Which means the vast majority have never and will never reach pay-out !
IS is making millions out of interest alone...
No, we've been through this many times before. The cost of administrating non-performing contributors...
... is next to nothing. the net is going towards a pricepoint of zero for storage space f.e. ... you get more storage with a free mailbox, than what expensive comps had 15 years ago.
The cost is not storage. It's the up-front administration costs of approving/rejecting tens of thousands of contributor applications, reviewing possibly millions of crappy images the vast majority of which will not be stock oriented or ever sell and also dealing with all the inane emails to CR that probably result.
Thats still next to nothing. Reviewing contribs & shots? Something likt 10c-a-pop
-
Istockcharts was closed, we made our table with the statistics of the authors Istockphoto.
[url]http://www.microstocktime.com/tool/stats/is/[/url] ([url]http://www.microstocktime.com/tool/stats/is/[/url])
Welcom!
Total Statictics:
- There are 78 453 authors in the base in all.
- The size of the base is: 10 899 022 works.
- Total sales: 123 553 923 +
Great site btw, very interesting to see how this works out in numbers! congrats!
Something else: I re-sorted for sales and clicked around a bit on the first page. Now I don't anything about anybody there except for Yuri and Lisa, but I ran into something that I already pointed out some time ago, which I think is really shameful for istock. A clicked on urbancow, and looking at the pics, zooming in on some I could only say "how on earth do you get thru with junk like that? I bet my azz the guy is an inspector". I checked the profile, and voila, the guy is an inspector. What a slap in the face for istock contributors in general that this corruption so blatant, out there, you can spot it form a 100 miles away. Add to this that Lobo guy who gets payed for insulting the people who produce the money for his paycheck. Forget the getty hostile takeover, that site has been taken hostage by a shameless bungler mob anyway.
-
^^ Which means the vast majority have never and will never reach pay-out !
IS is making millions out of interest alone...
Do a little math and you see you're completely wrong...
We're talking about 68k contributors. Let's assume they are all just below the payout limit, then that would mean 6,8 million unpaid royalties. In reality it's likely below 1 million. In today's world 1 million will give you around 20k in interest per year with a relatively safe investment.
I'm sure there's no profit in it for Istock.
-
"A clicked on urbancow, and looking at the pics, zooming in on some I could only say "how on earth do you get thru with junk like that? I bet my azz the guy is an inspector"."
Hey dribble, 'urbancow' has been around since the early days of the site. Perhaps you were looking at very old contributions and couldn't figure that out?
-
"A clicked on urbancow, and looking at the pics, zooming in on some I could only say "how on earth do you get thru with junk like that? I bet my azz the guy is an inspector"."
Hey dribble, 'urbancow' has been around since the early days of the site. Perhaps you were looking at very old contributions and couldn't figure that out?
As to say that standards were much more lax back then, which is true.
-
Great tool! Thanks a lot for all the hard work putting it together. :) May I ask how often you plan on updating the stats?
-
"A clicked on urbancow, and looking at the pics, zooming in on some I could only say "how on earth do you get thru with junk like that? I bet my azz the guy is an inspector"."
Hey dribble, 'urbancow' has been around since the early days of the site. Perhaps you were looking at very old contributions and couldn't figure that out?
Exactly! Y'all should see the photos Jon Oringer used to start Shutterstock. And Yuri Arcurs first photos when he just started. Terrible, horrible, awful.
-
try to update weekly. if it is not critical then move to monthly. problem of rounding.
-
52 BDs :o . I find that really surprising.
Well, for anyone starting today, there's no way of reaching it in a few years like ppl used to, even Yuri type of production would need at least 4-5 years now (if they were non-exclusive and restrained by low UL limits)
-
"A clicked on urbancow, and looking at the pics, zooming in on some I could only say "how on earth do you get thru with junk like that? I bet my azz the guy is an inspector"."
Hey dribble, 'urbancow' has been around since the early days of the site. Perhaps you were looking at very old contributions and couldn't figure that out?
Poor try @ provocation. Btw I'v seen the same thing most of the times I'v checked a mobs.. inspectors port. The first time I read on the IS forum that this is happening (comments deleted by the village idiot of course) I didn't give it much credit. I thought it's too blatant, anyone can check... but when I did look, I saw a whole series of a girl on the couch with laptop (new shots <-- for the weak minded), just about every single shot focused behind her on the wall. Another 'I' port, faces swallowed by noise, and in another port even some ridiculous, incredibly low-brow attempt at being artsy with some kid in the dark forest all blurry and noisy, and so on. Some ppl just have rhino thick skin I guess.
-
I guess you don't make the chart if you don't have images there anymore. I did get to keep my gold pen/tool tip. Nice chart though and interesting to see how many contributors there are at IS.
-
Hats off to sodafish btw! : ) That's quite an achievement
-
Thank you very much for putting this together.
+1
(http://s5.postimage.org/qjjgaejxf/cheers.gif) (http://postimage.org/)
-
I noticed that this site still exists, but the statistics for iStock have not been updated since june. Is there a reason for that?
-
I noticed that this site still exists, but the statistics for iStock have not been updated since june. Is there a reason for that?
Serge Black was active a few weeks ago (Last Active: November 19, 2012, 15:45)
surely he will show up :)
-
Cant be right? last time I checked the original chart, I was like, 490 something and with 55K sales, now Im down to 1300 something.
above me are two guys with just 9K downloads?
-
Cant be right? last time I checked the original chart, I was like, 490 something and with 55K sales, now Im down to 1300 something.
above me are two guys with just 9K downloads?
maybe you are looking at the portfolio size
-
Cant be right? last time I checked the original chart, I was like, 490 something and with 55K sales, now Im down to 1300 something.
above me are two guys with just 9K downloads?
maybe you are looking at the portfolio size
Hi!
How do you mean? are there differant ways of looking? I thought it was the overall ranking?
best.
-
Cant be right? last time I checked the original chart, I was like, 490 something and with 55K sales, now Im down to 1300 something.
above me are two guys with just 9K downloads?
maybe you are looking at the portfolio size
Hi!
How do you mean? are there differant ways of looking? I thought it was the overall ranking?
best.
yep, you have filters up there (portfolio size, downloads and rating)