|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - tickstock
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 52 53 54 ... 151
1201
« on: October 06, 2014, 07:37 »
Interesting that most people think an iStock exclusive will make the same or more as a nonexclusive contributor just at SS alone.
There is strong evidence that this is not true. The poll to the right shows exclusives make 50% more than at SS. Sean said that last month he was at 1/2 of what he would probably be making at iStock and that is for SS, GL, Stocksy, +. Cobalt said she was at 30-40% of what she thought she would be making as an exclusive and that includes many more sites than just SS.
The other interesting thing is that 43% of people here think that exclusives make less than the average RPI of a SS contributor and 31% think that exclusives have an RPI of nearly 1/3 the average SS contributor.
1202
« on: October 02, 2014, 16:23 »
How does this change affect RCs?
Before the change I was averaging about 4.3 redeemed credits per download and was on pace to reach the next level. Now that each indie file only costs 1 credit does that mean that I would need to quadruple my sales just to continue at the same pace as before?
You average 5 redeemed credits now.
1203
« on: October 02, 2014, 14:04 »
Downloads look to me like they are coming back. Since the change I'm getting about what I got last year. If that keeps up then income will probably be close to last year as well. I like that S+ files are easier to get too.
1204
« on: September 30, 2014, 15:49 »
I've seen new uploads go to the very first position of the 'popular' search without getting downloads, maybe that's why you are getting some sales on new files.
1205
« on: September 30, 2014, 15:02 »
If he's making nothing at iS he's bound to earn more at SS, and probably in the multiples of thousands of $, so what's there to lose by dropping the crown?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that since he thinks he can make about $6,000 per month on SS alone but he's still exclusive at iStock then he's doing better than that. Just a guess.
1206
« on: September 30, 2014, 14:47 »
This forum has gotten so poisonous that there are people here that think this would be a good use of their time?
1207
« on: September 30, 2014, 10:56 »
RPI is probably more important than RPD if you think about dropping exclusivity, the RPI for a given portfolio is pretty hard to forecast!
Yep hard to forecast for an individual but the average across all files and contributors is .28 dls/image at 70 cents RPD or a little less than 20 cents per file per month.
1208
« on: September 30, 2014, 10:46 »
i have about triple amount what you wrote.
i think i am average contributor, but i shoot only useful stuff, every photo have some sort of story
u were arguing that you can't scale up from 5K images to 10K images and expect the same $/image.. but I think you can.
The average image on SS sells about .28 times per month (probably slightly less the next time the numbers are updated, collection size is growing faster than sales). So an average portfolio of 10,000 images would have 2,800 sales in a month. I think average RPD for people at the highest level is around 75 cents. That comes to around $2,100 per month.
[/quote] Congrats. The numbers I posted are for the average based on what SS reports, if you're making 3x that per image then you are doing 3x the average. If i calculated an all-time RPD it would start in 2004 with subs at 20 cents each, which wouldn't really help anyone uploading today figure out what to expect.
This month (the day's not over yet, but...) my RPD is $1.00077; last month it was 96 cents.
YMMV
I'm talking about average RPD as of last quarter at SS. According to what SS has released the average RPD is about 70 cents, it will be higher for some and lower for others. I used 75 cents because that seems to be around what most long time contributors have said, maybe that should be revised up to around 80 or 85 cents so for contributors who have reached the highest level maybe you could add 10% to my monthly average numbers or for 10,000 images $2,380 would be a better guess for the average. Not many people here are going to give their exact earnings so using the numbers SS provides, which are real, I think people get a better idea of what is reasonable to expect.
1209
« on: September 30, 2014, 09:49 »
Your Shutterstock RPD estimate is way off. Mine (and I'm just average but paid at the highest level) is in the .90 to $1 range
That's higher than anyone else I've seen report on here. Gostwyck didn't even argue with that RPD. From SS the average RPD is reported at 70 cents.
1210
« on: September 30, 2014, 08:53 »
upload to ss, you will earn 5k$ with 10000 images per mounth
I doubt that most people with 10k images are making 5k/month on SS, or 6-7k, as said by stock-will-eat-itself. Maybe there are a few, but can anyone back that up?
I have over 5k images there and do well but hardly ever 3k/month even in better years.
People are making life decisions. They need realistic numbers.
I don't feel Cesar's numbers are too far off. They also agree with yours
he said 10K images for $5K or 50 cents/image online
You said 5k images for hardly ever over $3K (or 2.5K) which is also 50 cents/image online.
Perhaps you were arguing that you can't scale up from 5K images to 10K images and expect the same $/image.. but I think you can.
The average image on SS sells about .28 times per month (probably slightly less the next time the numbers are updated, collection size is growing faster than sales). So an average portfolio of 10,000 images would have 2,800 sales in a month. I think average RPD for people at the highest level is around 75 cents. That comes to around $2,100 per month.
1211
« on: September 29, 2014, 16:23 »
Try to stay positive, at least now you can drop exclusivity without any second thoughts. I'm sure a lot of your images would make it onto Stocksy if you choose that route. Whatever you decide, good luck.
1212
« on: September 29, 2014, 15:20 »
$3000 a week to $0? Are you sure there isn't some kind of reporting glitch with your account? That just doesn't seem right, even with all their stupidity.
I agree, open a support ticket. I've never had a $3000 week (well maybe if you counted GI sales) but I've had a decent number of downloads the last week. Much more than 0 that's for sure.
1213
« on: September 29, 2014, 08:20 »
Contact a lawyer immediately. You may find one who is in for a percentage of the amount demanded from the sued party. Chances of success should be about 80 - 90 % since the case is quite clear. Most likely the sued party will agree soon in the process to settle for a certain amount to avoid further trouble (by experience).
Another aspect is that some sites like SS restrict the maximum resolution you can use the images on the web - depending on where they got this image from obviously. I think shutterstocks limit was 1200 px on web usage and the one published on the original site was 1600px width. But please double check since I`m not sure .... neither can we know where it came from originally.
Finally I have to say that it should be the concern of the agency to protect our content. It is their job. And they terribly fail on us.
Shutterstock effectively got rid of the display size restriction: "Uploading any Image to a web site at a resolution that exceeds the display resolution of the intended viewing device will be deemed to be an attempt to redistribute the Image." From my understanding 8b in the restrictions might be relevant: "8.Publicly display an Image: (a) as a standalone file in any digital format on the internet; or (b) in any digital format without imposing technical or written restrictions intended to prevent the use of such Images by third parties, unless the Image is incorporated into a design with text or other content, and the overlaid or embedded text or other such content covers an area of at least 33% of the display size of the Image. Unless expressly permitted by this agreement, no other person may use Images which you have licensed hereunder."
1214
« on: September 26, 2014, 16:11 »
It's implied in what you said in reply to Pixelbytes' observation.
No it's not. Lots of buyers are getting much cheaper files now, overall the prices have come down since the change. Some buyers may feel shafted and may not come back even with lower prices but some buyers will probably look at the prices and that's all they will be concerned with.
How do you know that "overall prices have come down since the change"? That depends on a whole lot of data about what the sales volume at different price points was that neither you nor I are privy to. There's no doubt at all that some buyers are feeling shafted, and with good reason.
So when you say buyers might just look at the price comparison between SS and iS and go for iS based on price alone, in response to Pixelbytes' observation about customers possibly being put off by iStock's record of unilaterally scrapping its deals with buyers and substituting other stuff, you are being obtuse. Istock has made itself unreliable to customers by devaluing/revaluing/messing about with their accounts. That's beyond question.
You obviously feel very strongly about this. I'm not going to be bullied into agreeing with your position just because you call me names though. I think I'll step away from this argument before things get too heated.
1215
« on: September 26, 2014, 16:00 »
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option". That's only 22 cents an image,
It's a "very expensive option" if you only want 25 microstock images. It's about $80 per image, not 22c an image.
There are cheaper options if you want 25 images. I don't think a subscription is what a buyer would be looking at to get 25 images. Maybe I'm missing your point?
25-30 images is what the originally quoted post was about - a single project. It's not about the theoretically cheapest price for a user who willy-nilly uses up every download they're allowed, it's about the real-world experience of a particular buyer with particular - and quite ordinary - needs.
Edit - for the record, it was this: Posting here in case it disappears from the iS forum: (added: removed already, which isn't entirely unreasonable as it names the competitor)
"I am a customer and a contributor (granted I don't have many files but I see things from both sides).
I am a web designer and currently working on a new project. I am going to have to purchase around 30-40 images. I don't need massive file sizes, it's all for web and mediums will be enough to produce standard and @2x retina images.
The cheapest I can do this on iStock is 224.75 and that assumes all but 3 images are 'essentials' and not 'signature'. If I go to Shutterstock, it is 139... and I will still have about 30 images left in my allowance."
The topic moved a bit since then I guess. Back to the topic and the thread. 40 images at Shutterstock vs. iStock would be about the same give or take a few dollars. ETA: Never mind they cost exactly the same: $376 SS and $376 Istock
1216
« on: September 26, 2014, 15:55 »
Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year? Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits? If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see. We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.
So you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?
I never said that.
It's implied in what you said in reply to Pixelbytes' observation.
No it's not. Lots of buyers are getting much cheaper files now, overall the prices have come down since the change. Some buyers may feel shafted and may not come back even with lower prices but some buyers will probably look at the prices and that's all they will be concerned with.
1217
« on: September 26, 2014, 15:49 »
Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year? Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits? If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see. We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.
So you're saying that iStock (and those of us selling there) can benefit from buyers being ignorant of the history of buyers being shafted by iStock?
I never said that.
1218
« on: September 26, 2014, 15:46 »
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option". That's only 22 cents an image,
It's a "very expensive option" if you only want 25 microstock images. It's about $80 per image, not 22c an image.
There are cheaper options if you want 25 images. I don't think a subscription is what a buyer would be looking at to get 25 images. Maybe I'm missing your point?
1219
« on: September 26, 2014, 14:56 »
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option" etc etc
With respect, I think you are confusing the issue. You must surely see that the subscription offer, as presented, is confusing. Poor presentation makes it seem as if iStock is much more expensive than Shutterstock - unless the customer commits for a one year plan.
It is important to remember that a short commitment (i.e. a month rather than a whole year) can be more important to a customer than the lowest possible price. Or, putting it another way, that a long commitment to any sort of service can put people off.
The one month iStock subscription is actually a really good offer from the customer perspective. It's a cheap way to buy 250 images.
My guess from some of the things SS has said is that the one year plans are by far the most common. Also the one month plan at iStock is probably worse for buyers than the one month plan at SS, 250 images for $200 compared to 750 images for $249, if I was given that choice I would most likely opt for the 750 images.
Who would want to commit to a one year plan at a site that changes its terms and prices several times a year? Especially after what just happen to customers holding credits? If you want to buy a year sub makes more sense to do at a stable site like SS.
I wouldn't be surprised if buyers just look at the price and see they can get a more usable, cheaper subscription at iStock but I guess we'll see. We should know some more info on this in about 5 weeks.
1220
« on: September 26, 2014, 13:58 »
the one month plan at iStock is probably worse for buyers than the one month plan at SS, 250 images for $200 compared to 750 images for $249, if I was given that choice I would most likely opt for the 750 images.
If you were the customer who Sue quoted then the iStock deal would represent a much better offer. Not many customers actually need 750 images in a month. That's overkill. Price of entry is often (mostly) going to be more important.
The iStock offer has a lower entry price. It's a good offer which they are failing to sell. And it's a better offer even if you need many fewer than 250 images (I doubt many users even need 250 images in a month).
From the pricing on the site iStock already looks like there is a lower price to entry. At SS it's $249-199 and you look at iStock and see $166. Wouldn't a buyer that wanted a one month plan still click to see what the other plans are since the year long plan is cheaper than Shutterstock's cheapest plan? Maybe I'm different than most buyers but I clicked on the choose plan button to see what other plans were offered. It might be better to label that button 'see all plans' or something else though.
1221
« on: September 26, 2014, 13:28 »
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option" etc etc
With respect, I think you are confusing the issue. You must surely see that the subscription offer, as presented, is confusing. Poor presentation makes it seem as if iStock is much more expensive than Shutterstock - unless the customer commits for a one year plan.
It is important to remember that a short commitment (i.e. a month rather than a whole year) can be more important to a customer than the lowest possible price. Or, putting it another way, that a long commitment to any sort of service can put people off.
The one month iStock subscription is actually a really good offer from the customer perspective. It's a cheap way to buy 250 images.
My guess from some of the things SS has said is that the one year plans are by far the most common. Also the one month plan at iStock is probably worse for buyers than the one month plan at SS, 250 images for $200 compared to 750 images for $249, if I was given that choice I would most likely opt for the 750 images.
1222
« on: September 26, 2014, 12:15 »
Sue is right IMO that it is not clear enough. The eye goes to the words "one year plan" which are bolded next to the headline figure. A lazy reader like me can easily not notice the word "monthly" and fail to realise that other options exist.
It's not lazy reading to take it that way - it's exactly what it means, you can get a sub for $100 a month as long as you pay for a full year. They don't mention that you can get monthly subs for 124 unless you click on the link, and you won't click unless you are ready to commit for a full year.
It's a grade-A marketing fail.
They should advertise the 124 as the monthly rate and then trumpet the special discount to less than 100 for year-long subscriptions - unless, of course they want people not to buy the subs and to stick to the credits. It's a curious reversal of "bait and switch" they're doing, hiding the bait until you fall for the very expensive option.
I wouldn't call $1,999 for 9,000 full sized images a "very expensive option". That's only 22 cents an image, if anything it's a very very cheap option. The other plan is 80 cents an image, 250 at $199. You can also look at Shutterstock and the default selection, first choice, big savings plan is the $2,388 plan for 25 images a day plan. That comes to 26 cents per image (probably a lot more since not many people use their full quota or any of it on the weekends).
1223
« on: September 26, 2014, 10:55 »
since a month no sales.
but nowhere.
Sorry to say but you need better technique and better content if you want to make any money at this.
1224
« on: September 26, 2014, 08:44 »
Posting here in case it disappears from the iS forum:
"I am a customer and a contributor (granted I don't have many files but I see things from both sides).
I am a web designer and currently working on a new project. I am going to have to purchase around 30-40 images. I don't need massive file sizes, it's all for web and mediums will be enough to produce standard and @2x retina images.
The cheapest I can do this on iStock is 224.75 and that assumes all but 3 images are 'essentials' and not 'signature'. If I go to Shutterstock, it is 139... and I will still have about 30 images left in my allowance."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=362684&messageid=7050689
Geeze. This almost supports they theory of mass exodus to SS AND......that IS is looking for a different segment of buyer base.
Do you see a mass influx of sales at SS to go along with this?
1225
« on: September 26, 2014, 08:18 »
WME worst month in 10 years, for the 1st time summer beat September !
$63. From a port that used to net me $1500 In the good ol days.
I don't know what I'm going to do.
It looks like you are selling exclusive raster versions of nonexclusive vectors. It seems unlikely that you will get many sales of your exclusive rasters if you are selling the nonexclusive vectors at 1/3 the price.
Pages: 1 ... 44 45 46 47 48 [49] 50 51 52 53 54 ... 151
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
