How do you use this info?

Yes, RPD for IStock and partners is the lowest of all sites, any sale you gain at IS at the expense of another site on average is a loss. As I've said, even from DP.

RPD continues to decline as on demand downloads keep drying up while Thinkstock and sub sales are declining much slower or keeping level. RPI also sliding big time for the same reason.

Any one contributor's individual performance is such a statistically insignificant part of the microstock industry that it would be difficult to tell anything from it. I expect this industry to be just like most others that are maturing. In 3 years the topology of the market will be unrecognizable from what it is today. Leaders in 2015, may not even be in business in 2018.   Remember the 100mb zip disk? What about 8 track tapes? Unless you make steel beams or clay pots for a living, expect change, evolution and Darwinian like natural selection. It's normal.

I fully agree.
One example doesn't make a rule. But one example is more than an opinion based only on assumptions and no facts to validate it.
Only if more users would put together examples, trends could be better identified and assumptions validated, or not.

What I can say with certainty, is that (for the time being) my SS revenue and RPD have not been impaired by AS (quite the opposite), while, for me, IS lost steam, both on RPD and revenue.
The good news is that, overall, I had the best month ever.

My trend is similar to the poll results on the right. Upload to one site, get more than all the sites combined (that have an earnings rating) and do a 10th of the work.

That's another assumption you have no proof for, but I'm glad you think like this. Not even the "less work" part is entirely true. Less work, yes, but not 1/10th.

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on September 01, 2015, 13:25

My trend is similar to the poll results on the right. Upload to one site, get more than all the sites combined (that have an earnings rating) and do a 10th of the work.

Based on my own personal results (which obviously is all any of us have to go by), the figure for iStock exclusive looks entirely bogus. Unfortunately there is no chart or table that shows historical data, but my memory is that the results shown now are actually higher than they were a year ago. That is so entirely different from my own results that I simply can't believe it.

The number is pretty low actually.  245 in the poll means that the average amount made was only $1225.

Quote from: tickstock on September 01, 2015, 16:41

Quote from: KB on September 01, 2015, 16:38

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on September 01, 2015, 13:25

My trend is similar to the poll results on the right. Upload to one site, get more than all the sites combined (that have an earnings rating) and do a 10th of the work.

Based on my own personal results (which obviously is all any of us have to go by), the figure for iStock exclusive looks entirely bogus. Unfortunately there is no chart or table that shows historical data, but my memory is that the results shown now are actually higher than they were a year ago. That is so entirely different from my own results that I simply can't believe it.

The number is pretty low actually.  245 in the poll means that the average amount made was only $1225.

If you re-read my perhaps poorly written post, you'll see that I wasn't talking about the absolute number (since I was not aware of the $5/pt conversion ratio). I was talking about where it was relative to last year, which by my memory was considerably lower.

However, not trusting my memory, I just used the Wayback Machine to see. The archive shows that the figure for iStock exclusive on Sep 1, 2014 was 150.9.

That is why, based on my own port's performance, the current number seems bogus -- or, at worst, worthless. Because I'm seeing a 40% to 50% drop in earnings, not a 60% increase.

That's my experience, and similar to most other people who are posting anywhere I see.
These nebulous people with alleged 60% increases are keeping their heads well down.

FWIW, my credit RPD is rising. Clearly, that is based on vastly fewer credit downloads, as my overall $$ is shooting down due to subs*. My hypothesis is that iS are doing their best to get subs buyers (there have been a few vacancies over the past few months specifically to sell subs, and there are still several vacancies for same at the moment), so many of the people who are buying credits are the smaller buyers who have no need for a subs package, or even a large credit bundle, hence are paying more per image.
*also interested to note from various sources that I'm not the only one with shrinking Getty** sales.
** anyone seriously believe that they now have any intention of getting our editorials onto Getty? I will be seriously gobsmacked if they do.

FWIW, my credit RPD is rising. Clearly, that is based on vastly fewer credit downloads, as my overall $$ is shooting down due to subs*. My hypothesis is that iS are doing their best to get subs buyers (there have been a few vacancies over the past few months specifically to sell subs, and there are still several vacancies for same at the moment), so many of the people who are buying credits are the smaller buyers who have no need for a subs package, or even a large credit bundle, hence are paying more per image.

I think a better way to see if that is the case is to look at your average $/RCs. That's because your RPD can be influenced by a change in the ratio of Ess to Sig/Sig+ sales. $/RCs shows exactly what you're referring to: Is the average price of credits going up or down for your typical buyer? In my case, it's pretty much unchanged, between $1.68 and $1.78 this year, with no clear direction month-to-month.

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 01, 2015, 18:23

In my opinion (and this time it is only an opinion, indeed ) the exclusive stats are misleading for a simple reason: it is fair to assume that those IS exclusives have, in average, much larger ports than the regular non-exclusives.
The average revenue of a few exclusive "pro" ports will be obviously inflated when compared with the average revenue of similar non-exclusive "pro" ports, but mixed with a much larger number of small newbies ports.

These stats compare apples with oranges.

If we are to believe that the iStock exclusive numbers are correct, then that might indicate that over the last year, those exclusives with smaller ports have become independent in droves, heavily shifting the balance towards those with larger ports. That explanation makes sense (though it might be completely wrong  ). Thanks.

Good point. The ones that stay exclusive are doiing good. The ones that left, aren't axclusive. Seems that the exclusive make around 5X more then indies which makes the number bigger. Exclusive also get more Getty and higher subs pay. I don't see that as wrong, just that if you look at a small sample of people who stayed, of course they will have the high numbers.

Same for DP, DT and FT. The numbers look better because people who left aren't represented. Only the people who are happy who stayed. It all adds up to, telling us that the numbers are not comparing the same, but are apples to oranges.

SS numbers are for almost everybody except people who can't get past the review. They are more representative of micro in general for that one agency. What that tells me is SS is much better then the poll shows compared to the other. More belong more stay more make money.

In my opinion (and this time it is only an opinion, indeed ) the exclusive stats are misleading for a simple reason: it is fair to assume that those IS exclusives have, in average, much larger ports than the regular non-exclusives.
The average revenue of a few exclusive "pro" ports will be obviously inflated when compared with the average revenue of similar non-exclusive "pro" ports, but mixed with a much larger number of small newbies ports.

That's not the point here.
I agree that the poll in general doesn't give any useful information - apart from comparing a trend, and as we have no idea who is polling each month, even that isn't possible.

We're talking about the exclusives' average increasing by such a huge amount over the year.
Of course, I know that many exclusives and indies are making more than me.
I see no evidence anywhere that anyone apart from some newbies, happy to be picking up some sub sales, are achieving vast increases in their income from iStock, including info from several long standing BDs.

However, if a lot of middling and lower ranking contributors* have gone indie, that could falsely increase the exclusive total, without actually meaning that income there is going up. Just another indication that the poll doesn't really mean anything.

* But I know that at least some higher ranking contributors have also gone indie. I don't know if it's enough to balance out the results.

Quote from: ShadySue on September 02, 2015, 05:20

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 01, 2015, 18:23

In my opinion (and this time it is only an opinion, indeed ) the exclusive stats are misleading for a simple reason: it is fair to assume that those IS exclusives have, in average, much larger ports than the regular non-exclusives.
The average revenue of a few exclusive "pro" ports will be obviously inflated when compared with the average revenue of similar non-exclusive "pro" ports, but mixed with a much larger number of small newbies ports.

That's not the point here.
I agree that the poll in general doesn't give any useful information - apart from comparing a trend, and as we have no idea who is polling each month, even that isn't possible.

We're talking about the exclusives' average increasing by such a huge amount over the year.
Of course, I know that many exclusives and indies are making more than me.
I see no evidence anywhere that anyone apart from some newbies, happy to be picking up some sub sales, are achieving vast increases in their income from iStock, including info from several long standing BDs.

However, if a lot of middling and lower ranking contributors* have gone indie, that could falsely increase the exclusive total, without actually meaning that income there is going up. Just another indication that the poll doesn't really mean anything.

* But I know that at least some higher ranking contributors have also gone indie. I don't know if it's enough to balance out the results.

Have you ever noticed that there are a lot of very unhappy people on this forum that constantly complain about Istock? And for months and months and months to no end. It's the herd mentality.

Then their are very few people that even remotely suggest life is good on the other side and the result it very abusive and negative on this forum. So in effect it silences people. Even mention you are doing well on Istock and you get kicked in the nuts, not by one, but by many.

I work hard at shooting stock photos, I am exclusive, and I make a great living doing it. I submit images and they sell.

Naysayers will always be unhappy and blame anything, everyone, and everything on their own failures. Naysayers often band together to live the dreary existence of being negative almost to cult status.

It's a pattern I see on this forum far too frequently to the point of being utterly boring and repetitive.

Actually I am not unhappy at all!

As I mentioned a few posts ago, August was my best month ever. This is not a reason to be unhappy.

I'm also happy to see the importance of IS diminishing, since this is the worst agency around for non exclusives. I can only wish they continue to lose customers to agencies with more respect for us.

I'm also happy with you and the other IS exclusives staying as long as possible with IS instead of competing "on the other side".
However there is a scenario in which you and the other exclusive die-hards would change their mind. This could accelerate the migration of IS customers towards other agencies. And this can become an wake-up call for IS and an incentive for them to improve their lousy commissions. From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.


Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 02, 2015, 12:13

From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.

You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more.  I could have told you what would happen with that strategy.  Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.

No, Getty has selected those images from my port, at that time. I had no say in what they preferred.
Moreover their lack of flexibility makes this strategy very difficult.
You cannot withdraw individual images from Getty. You can only delete the whole port and walk away.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 02, 2015, 12:13

From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.

You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more.  I could have told you what would happen with that strategy.  Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.

Is it possible he meant to say Istock exclusivity rather than Getty exclusivity? Two very different things. I have many exclusive images with Getty as a House Contributor and I am also exclusive to Istock.

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on September 02, 2015, 12:36

Quote from: tickstock on September 02, 2015, 12:21

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 02, 2015, 12:13

From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.

You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more.  I could have told you what would happen with that strategy.  Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.

Is it possible he meant to say Istock exclusivity rather than Getty exclusivity? Two very different things. I have many exclusive images with Getty as a House Contributor and I am also exclusive to Istock.

I really meant Getty exclusivity as an example of a bad exclusive deal. I don't know how you feel "on the other side" as an IS exclusive. My experience with exclusivity was convincing enough to abandon it. But this is just me and my experience.
I am happy with your belief in exclusivity and with Thickstock's attempts to find alternative explanations to justify this belief

I wouldn't exactly call Getty Moment RF images exclusive especially when you have almost identical images on SS. 

Quote from: tickstock on September 02, 2015, 13:16

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 02, 2015, 12:56

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on September 02, 2015, 12:36

Quote from: tickstock on September 02, 2015, 12:21

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 02, 2015, 12:13

From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.

You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more.  I could have told you what would happen with that strategy.  Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.

Is it possible he meant to say Istock exclusivity rather than Getty exclusivity? Two very different things. I have many exclusive images with Getty as a House Contributor and I am also exclusive to Istock.

I really meant Getty exclusivity as an example of a bad exclusive deal. I don't know how you feel "on the other side" as an IS exclusive. My experience with exclusivity was convincing enough to abandon it. But this is just me and my experience.
I am happy with your belief in exclusivity and with Thickstock's attempts to find alternative explanations to justify this belief

I wouldn't exactly call Getty Moment RF images exclusive especially when you have almost identical images on SS.

This is "just your opinion" and I'm happy it justifies your belief.
I know for a fact, that the rest of my port (the one Getty was not interested in) brought me, as non-exclusive, 30% better revenue per image per year, than what Getty has curated from me.

I would say of course they would.  Why would anyone pay more for the nearly exact same image on Getty than on Shutterstock?  I would completely expect that to happen.  I also wouldn't say that contributing to Getty moment RF is a great idea.  I think you'll see I never advocated putting the same images on macro and micro and I never advocated using Getty Moment.

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 02, 2015, 13:25

Quote from: tickstock on September 02, 2015, 13:16

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 02, 2015, 12:56

Quote from: Rose Tinted Glasses on September 02, 2015, 12:36

Quote from: tickstock on September 02, 2015, 12:21

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 02, 2015, 12:13

From my Getty exclusivity experience, I know that I make more by spreading my eggs on different baskets.
This could be applicable to you, or not.

You put the worse versions of your images on Getty RF and the better versions on Shutterstock, it's no wonder your experience is that Shutterstock makes more.  I could have told you what would happen with that strategy.  Uploading your better versions as RM and not putting sisters onto microstock is probably a more sensible strategy.

Is it possible he meant to say Istock exclusivity rather than Getty exclusivity? Two very different things. I have many exclusive images with Getty as a House Contributor and I am also exclusive to Istock.

I really meant Getty exclusivity as an example of a bad exclusive deal. I don't know how you feel "on the other side" as an IS exclusive. My experience with exclusivity was convincing enough to abandon it. But this is just me and my experience.
I am happy with your belief in exclusivity and with Thickstock's attempts to find alternative explanations to justify this belief

I wouldn't exactly call Getty Moment RF images exclusive especially when you have almost identical images on SS.

This is "just your opinion" and I'm happy it justifies your belief.
I know for a fact, that the rest of my port (the one Getty was not interested in) brought me, as non-exclusive, 30% better revenue per image per year, than what Getty has curated from me.

I would say of course they would.  Why would anyone pay more for the nearly exact same image on Getty than on Shutterstock?  I would completely expect that to happen.  I also wouldn't say that contributing to Getty moment RF is a great idea.  I think you'll see I never advocated putting the same images on macro and micro and I never advocated using Getty Moment.

I didn't have duplicates nor similars in my port.
I would agree that, in time, my photography evolved. Today, I might have better photos with microstock agencies, but it doesn't invalidate the conclusion reached when my best photos were exclusive with Getty.
Those not considered interesting by Getty sold better on SS & Co than the "top" Getty exclusive photos.

The point of this topic is not about Getty and not even about exclusivity.
It is about IS being the worst agency out there with that lousy commission and abysmal RPD.

Quote from: Zero Talent on September 02, 2015, 13:37

I didn't have duplicates nor similars in my port.

Would you like me to post links?

Of course not.
Those links would not be relevant anyway, once you would have understood my previous post.

Have you ever noticed that there are a lot of very unhappy people on this forum that constantly complain about Istock? And for months and months and months to no end. It's the herd mentality.

Then their are very few people that even remotely suggest life is good on the other side and the result it very abusive and negative on this forum. So in effect it silences people. Even mention you are doing well on Istock and you get kicked in the nuts, not by one, but by many.

I work hard at shooting stock photos, I am exclusive, and I make a great living doing it. I submit images and they sell.

Naysayers will always be unhappy and blame anything, everyone, and everything on their own failures. Naysayers often band together to live the dreary existence of being negative almost to cult status.

It's a pattern I see on this forum far too frequently to the point of being utterly boring and repetitive.

I am likely one of those people to whom you refer. I am well aware that it gets boring and repetitive, that is one reason why I post infrequently.  I am very happy that you are doing so well at iStock. Congratulations, your hard work and talent are paying off. If you have had your nuts kicked in by me at any time, I am sorry. I certainly wouldn't do that on purpose. I think the only reason others might do it is because they find it hard to believe that such positive posts are actually authentic. People probably think that Getty has shills here, trying to put a positive slant on conversations whenever possible. It is unfortunate that we can't know who here is real, and who is not.

I used to absolutely love iStock. I thought it was the best microstock site on the internet. That's why I left independence and became exclusive in 2010. It all started to unravel only 2 months later. (It had actually begun in 2009, however it was Sep 2010 when RCs were introduced, and the first Big Lie was revealed: Their "grandfathering" contract was entirely worthless.) Things have been deteriorating ever since, with each new change leading to less and less income. So I think I have a legitimate reason to be angry and unhappy. But I do try to limit such posts, as I realize they serve no useful purpose other to vent my frustrations.