|
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 - leaf
Pages: 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 ... 390
1876
« on: August 24, 2012, 18:15 »
If we're wishing, I'd love a Home button at the bottom of each page, if possible.
I'm heading to bed now but I'll take care of that tomorrow. I'll also remove some of those useless things below our user names on the side.
1877
« on: August 24, 2012, 12:59 »
Almost impossible to read the Recent Topics list. Needs font size, bold, or separator chart bars or something to be able to pick titles off of the page much more easily.
Agree. Plus the ones I haven't read aren't bolded anymore to separate them from the ones I've already visited.
Looks like that's fixed, at least on my views.
yep, just got that taken care of. Just playing with the colors a bit now.
1878
« on: August 24, 2012, 12:25 »
Is the ignore feature gone?
temporarily yes, but I'll bring it back.
1879
« on: August 24, 2012, 11:16 »
Almost impossible to read the Recent Topics list. Needs font size, bold, or separator chart bars or something to be able to pick titles off of the page much more easily.
Agree. Plus the ones I haven't read aren't bolded anymore to separate them from the ones I've already visited.
agreed agreed.. it's still a work in progress. Give me a few more minutes 
1880
« on: August 24, 2012, 09:04 »
Is DT/IS rank gone? It's a pity. It was good to see myself slowly climbing up
What these yellow squares mean? I have four of them - it must be something very bad. :-)
Diamond Members have only one - it must be reminder that it is time to pay. OK. I'm going to do it right now. :-)
DT/IS -rank: No, just the links are gone - until I get it fixed
yellow squares: who knows, proabably post count or something. They'll be gone soon
Thanks. Anyway - I can't find info how to pay for MSG membership.
This is a built in feature now - you can find it on Profile > Summary then click on Actions > Paid Subscription in the top menu
1881
« on: August 24, 2012, 08:39 »
Is DT/IS rank gone? It's a pity. It was good to see myself slowly climbing up
What these yellow squares mean? I have four of them - it must be something very bad. :-)
Diamond Members have only one - it must be reminder that it is time to pay. OK. I'm going to do it right now. :-)
DT/IS -rank: No, just the links are gone - until I get it fixed
yellow squares: who knows, proabably post count or something. They'll be gone soon
Thanks. Anyway - I can't find info how to pay for MSG membership.
haha, yeah - that page doesn't exist anymore Still working at getting things up and running and everything back in place. There should be a link at the top saying 'Support' when I have it working.
1882
« on: August 24, 2012, 08:31 »
Is DT/IS rank gone? It's a pity. It was good to see myself slowly climbing up
What these yellow squares mean? I have four of them - it must be something very bad. :-)
Diamond Members have only one - it must be reminder that it is time to pay. OK. I'm going to do it right now. :-)
DT/IS -rank: No, just the links are gone - until I get it fixed yellow squares: who knows, proabably post count or something. They'll be gone soon
1883
« on: August 24, 2012, 08:25 »
its a lot harder to read and find the topics, the colors are very similar
Yeah, I haven't done anything with the design yet. It is just the default.
1884
« on: August 24, 2012, 08:04 »
Is like [disagree] like thumbs up/thumbs down?
I'm scared to try it out in case it's something different!
I don't think I'll use that feature. A thumbs up on posts that people agree with is nice I think. I'll see what I can find for a nice mod.
1885
« on: August 24, 2012, 07:48 »
I like this new version. It shows I have "Useful Posts: 65535".
haha.. yeah congrats. Nice to see that it's working. Things should be a little faster and hopefully a lot less spamers. The layout looks like crap - I'm working on that still.
1886
« on: August 24, 2012, 06:35 »
Wow, WTH. Who stole my cheese!? I thought this place got hacked.
well it looks like the forum is updated and healthy.. it just looks strange (for now). I'll work on that next.
1887
« on: August 24, 2012, 04:48 »
It's finally come time to upgrade the forum to the SMF 2.0 software. I'll plan on working on it today so you may see some errors or strange messages .. no worries. everything's under control. I promise.  .. that's also to say that if things crash and burn they will be restored to this point and some posts will be lost.
1888
« on: August 23, 2012, 17:13 »
Where are you getting the 2.57 from?
It was $2.05 + your $.52 average RPD for the total cost of an average sale. I don't know what the average RPD is, but I can't imagine it is over 70 cents. Probably closer to 50 cents (maybe below).
The $0.52 is part of the $2.05, no need to add it.
SS states in their filing with the SEC (that Leaf has linked to in the opening post) that their average sales price per download in 2011 was $2,05. And out of this average we receive our royalties.
Agreed. I'll try and state what I originally said a bit clearer. In the IPO they clearly stated that * Gross revenue in 2011 was 120.3 million * Gross royalties paid to artists in 2011 was 33.8 million I'm not sure how you can twist the numbers to say anything other than a 28% overall payout. Even if you have a different way of calculating the figures, what is wrong with this method?
1889
« on: August 23, 2012, 17:00 »
mine is 52 cents
so if you use dirkr's method and Ed's number method we get
52 cents per download / 2.05 rev. per download for SS
25% royalties for me
Shouldn't that be .52 divided by 2.57 or 20%?
Where are you getting the 2.57 from? The 2.05 is the Shutterstock's declared Revenue per Download in 2011. In 2010 it was $1.88 and was $1.80 in 2009 If we average these out, we get $1.91 which would be more accurate as my earnings are from all those years + earlier years. .52 / 1.91 = 27.2% royalty If we assume that the majority of people are referred to SS, that's another 3cents they have to pay out per download.. so .55 / 1.91 = 28.8% royalties which is pretty spot on with my original numbers.
1890
« on: August 23, 2012, 16:29 »
Yes, but keep in mind, we are dealing with averages. At the lower level, how many EL's are you realistically getting? Enough to boost that 12% royalty to 20%? I don't think a reasonable person can make that assumption. My guess would be closer to 15%
You're still way off.
No need to guess how much an EL impacts the numbers. Just look at your own numbers at Shutterstock. Divide total revenue by total sales.
My numbers give an average of 48 cents per download. And I am small fry, still in the 33 cent per sub download level.
mine is 52 cents so if you use dirkr's method and Ed's number method we get 52 cents per download / 2.05 rev. per download for SS 25% royalties for me
1891
« on: August 23, 2012, 16:22 »
Yes, but keep in mind, we are dealing with averages. At the lower level, how many EL's are you realistically getting? Enough to boost that 12% royalty to 20%? I don't think a reasonable person can make that assumption. My guess would be closer to 15%
When the extended licenses payout 1000%+ according to your chart a few licenses go a long way. From my numbers when comparing 25-a-day download to extended licenses, I am getting about 15% extended licenses... or 1/6 of my earnings are from extended licenses That said, I don't think my calculations were very complicated. In the IPO they stated their gross income. They stated the growth of the royalties paid out each year along with the %'s, from that one can easily figure out the actual royalties paid out each year, thus the % royalties paid out each year.
1892
« on: August 23, 2012, 16:02 »
Leaf, I think you're over-thinking it.
From Page 10:
That leads us to an easy calculation
The next question is...at what level are the majority of the contributors?
edited: I added an average column to get average royalty % combined at all three levels
I think the problem with this calculation is that you also have to consider the extended licenses and on-demand purchases. For extended licenses we are getting paid $28, their revenue per download (including all licensing types) is still $2.05 in 2011, so in that case (by your numbers) we are getting 1365% royalties. Obviously that's not the case because of subscriptions but I don't think knowing the revenue per download tells us much about our royalties.
1894
« on: August 23, 2012, 15:12 »
.. if you can find any mistakes in my calculations.. let me know.
1895
« on: August 23, 2012, 15:11 »
There has been some discussion about this in this thread after Yuri supposed the amount to be under 20% and later Scott Braut from Shutterstock stepped in to correct him saying it was 25%-30%. Scott's statement confused the matter a bit using the words ' in general' and talking about % net revenue, not gross. For the record, the effective royalty rate we pay our contributors varies based on product type, customer usage, currency exchange rates and other factors. In aggregate, it is generally in the range of 25%-30% of net revenue, not the 20% rate that was previously suggested. Anyhow, I took a look at the IPO offering data again and took a good look at the numbers. Shutterstock states the gross revenue for the last three years are as follows 2009 - 61.1M 2010 - 82.9M 2011 - 120.3M As their income is the sale of our images, that is what I'll consider as the starting point of what they take in.. or what they sell our images for. The IPO doesn't state what they pay out in royalties. The only hard number they provide is cost of revenue which includes royalties Cost of Revenue. Cost of revenue consists of royalties paid to contributors, credit card processing fees, image and video review costs, customer service expenses, the infrastructure costs related to maintaining our websites and associated employee compensation, facility costs and other supporting overhead costs. We expect that our cost of revenue will increase in absolute dollars in the foreseeable future as our revenue grows. That's not accurate enough What they DO however state, in hard facts - within a paragraph of text mind you is the increase in royalties year over year 2009 -> 2010 : Contributor royalties increased by $6.7 million, or 41% 2010->2011 : Royalties increased $10.8 million, or 47% If we know the percent they increased and the amount they increased we can then know what the actual royalty payout figures were in those years.. and they are... 2009 - 16.3M 2010 - 23.3M 2011 - 33.8M So if the gross revenue is divided by the royalties paid out, we get (on average) 2009 - 26.7 % 2010 - 27.7 % 2011 - 28 % .. I guess Scott wasn't too far off after all
1897
« on: August 23, 2012, 12:22 »
Actually StockSubmitter also uses Exiftool to write metadata to images.
So it there is any problem reading metadata after StockSubmitter wrote it to images, it should be some problem with Exiftool.
Also Adobe Bridge may be confused by different types of metadata in single image. StockSubmitter writes metadata in three formats - EXIF, IPTC, XMP - to make sure it is read correctly in any software.
Earlier there was no problems with reading metadata written by StockSubmitter in any program including Adobe Bridge. It is strange you have such problems now. When did you start to encounter this issue? Did you upgrade Adobe Bridge or something like that?
I just noticed the problem a couple days ago. I haven't updated the Adobe software at all recently.
1898
« on: August 23, 2012, 05:42 »
Wow, thanks Leaf. Loved that. Great to see that they used authentic splashes.
I yearn for a space where I can make such a big splashy mess! Ohhhh the possibilities...
how about a back yard?
1899
« on: August 23, 2012, 04:58 »
Here's one how to video and they did it by... yep, you guessed it. splashing
1900
« on: August 23, 2012, 04:55 »
But the real problem is trying something that's been done by at least 100 other sites. You need to forget about this until you have a USP that gets us interested. I wouldn't worry about what we want to start with.
I disagree completely. I don't think you need anything overly unique. You just need to do it well. Micro was started by a bunch of people that just wanted to sell a few files and make a little money. They did that and it worked. Then, it grew up and pros moved in. Unfortunately, the model didn't really change to accommodate those contributors. If you are a pro, then you should be getting paid like one. How many sites can really claim that they are paying their contributors like professionals? And how many people can say they are a pro when they don't make a decent wage doing it. My point is that if none of the micros are fulfilling the needs that professional contributors have, then how are there too many sites? I'd like to see more (good ones) and I wish new sites the best.
Well, even if I can say I'm positive about the outlook of the site in the this thread I agree with you cthoman. when people say a certain market is saturated or there are already too many of some profession - teachers for example. My thought / comment is - there is never enough good anythings. There may be a teacher surplus but there is not a surplus of good teachers or in our case a surplus of good microstock sites.
Pages: 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 ... 390
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
