Author Topic: New statistics Istockphoto (Read 15032 times)

drugal · « **Reply #25 on:** June 10, 2012, 03:09 »

Quote from: gostwyck on June 09, 2012, 06:46

Quote from: drugal on June 09, 2012, 05:50
Quote from: gostwyck on June 09, 2012, 04:23
Quote from: aeonf on June 08, 2012, 18:25
^^ 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

drugal · « **Reply #26 on:** June 10, 2012, 03:25 »

Quote from: 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/

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.

dirkr · « **Reply #27 on:** June 10, 2012, 16:50 »

Quote from: aeonf on June 08, 2012, 18:25

^^ 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.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #28 on:** June 10, 2012, 17:57 »

"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?

Mantis · « **Reply #29 on:** June 10, 2012, 18:07 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 10, 2012, 17:57

"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.

robynmac · « **Reply #30 on:** June 10, 2012, 20:10 »

Great tool! Thanks a lot for all the hard work putting it together.

May I ask how often you plan on updating the stats?

Karimala · « **Reply #31 on:** June 10, 2012, 23:13 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 10, 2012, 17:57

"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.

Serge.Black · « **Reply #32 on:** June 11, 2012, 08:06 »

try to update weekly. if it is not critical then move to monthly. problem of rounding.

wut · « **Reply #33 on:** June 11, 2012, 09:45 »

52 BDs

. 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)

drugal · « **Reply #34 on:** June 11, 2012, 10:54 »

Quote from: sjlocke on June 10, 2012, 17:57

"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.

cthoman · « **Reply #35 on:** June 11, 2012, 11:08 »

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.

drugal · « **Reply #36 on:** June 11, 2012, 11:12 »

Hats off to sodafish btw! : ) That's quite an achievement

RacePhoto · « **Reply #37 on:** June 13, 2012, 16:12 »

Quote from: jsnover on June 08, 2012, 11:00

Thank you very much for putting this together.

+1

Maui · « **Reply #38 on:** December 11, 2012, 12:53 »

I noticed that this site still exists, but the statistics for iStock have not been updated since june. Is there a reason for that?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #39 on:** December 11, 2012, 13:04 »

Quote from: Maui on December 11, 2012, 12:53

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

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #40 on:** December 11, 2012, 13:08 »

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?

luissantos84 · « **Reply #41 on:** December 11, 2012, 13:09 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 11, 2012, 13:08

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

ClaridgeJ · « **Reply #42 on:** December 11, 2012, 13:36 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 11, 2012, 13:09

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 11, 2012, 13:08
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.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #43 on:** December 11, 2012, 13:38 »

Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 11, 2012, 13:36

Quote from: luissantos84 on December 11, 2012, 13:09
Quote from: ClaridgeJ on December 11, 2012, 13:08
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)

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New statistics Istockphoto (Read 15032 times)

drugal

drugal

dirkr

Sean Locke Photography

Mantis

robynmac

Karimala

Serge.Black

wut

drugal

cthoman

drugal

RacePhoto

Maui

luissantos84

ClaridgeJ

luissantos84

ClaridgeJ

luissantos84

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors