|
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
2726
« on: August 13, 2013, 14:32 »
\
2727
« on: August 13, 2013, 12:30 »
\
2728
« on: August 13, 2013, 08:31 »
\
2729
« on: August 12, 2013, 16:49 »
\
2730
« on: August 12, 2013, 16:42 »
\
2731
« on: August 12, 2013, 14:52 »
Don't mistake my sentiments about Istock, I'm much more negative about the alternative than I am positive about exclusivity. I think it's the (much) better option out of two poor ones.
Trust me. There are more than two options. I've pretty much chosen neither of the two you are referring to.
You are almost one of a kind around here though, I don't expect that plan to work for everyone.
2732
« on: August 12, 2013, 13:44 »
Don't mistake my sentiments about Istock, I'm much more negative about the alternative than I am positive about exclusivity. I think it's the (much) better option out of two poor ones.
2733
« on: August 12, 2013, 13:27 »
tickstock, as you know, I used to work closely with many people in the istock community. And if you want to see monthly sales threads that give a very positive impression of success and overall well being of the company, why don't you go back two or three years and look at the threads there. The sales threads happening now are unbelievably depressing.And the reports from the network grid are even worse and the majority of community interaction is no longer taking place on the istock forums. You don't seem to be using them yourself...
Don't get me wrong, I know there are a lot of people doing worse than they used to be. The question is still whether or not it's better to be exclusive or not. Comparing a few years ago to now isn't really that useful, we can't go back there (for me it's better now, so that's ok). Just saying Istock is much worse than it was doesn't mean that anything and everything else out there is better.
2734
« on: August 12, 2013, 12:52 »
\
2735
« on: August 12, 2013, 12:50 »
I've never heard of anyone reporting an 800% or 1000% increase in earnings upon going exclusive. 150-300%, maybe 4 times if your style is really suited for istock and they choose a lot of vettas AND they sell...
And lately all you here is people losing money, even from those who contribute over 1900 new filesin 12months...
The price of your files will increase if you go exclusive, but the volume of sales will drop and on Vettas your royalty will be lower than on the S+ files.
I am sure the earnings poll on the right is correct, but you cannot use it to imply that anyones portfolio will see a 1000% increase in earnings upon going exclusive.
If this was happening we would all know about it. The istock community might be scared to post on the istock forums, but they are all extremly well connected, especially those who do it full time.
Just a few numbers from my own sales, 50% of my last 100 sales were S+ and Vetta, and 40% were S so that makes my RPD around 13x what it would have been if I was nonexclusive getting those same sales. If "all you hear is people losing money" then I think you aren't listening. The earnings thread where you talk about the person uploading 1900 files and losing money has a black diamond and other diamonds saying they are up year on year, more than just a couple too. I also think most people there are reporting just on Istock numbers and not accounting for Getty Images sales, after all those haven't come in yet. My Istock sales are lower but most months GI sales have balanced that out or increased it.
2736
« on: August 12, 2013, 12:12 »
It would depend totally whether the files have any indie rivals, which buyers can see at a glance is cheaper. Conversely, it isn't obvious in a search (and of course, iStock did it deliberately, just to piss off buyers) which exclusive files are available at main price. Although they lied that the collections change was to make things more transparent to to the buyers, before the change the price symbol was visible on a search.
Certainly don't consider search position. In my regular checks, which are of small search results (so that they're all on one page) there seem to be a few exclusive at the top, then a big swathe of indies in the middle, then exclusives with 1-10 downloads at the bottom. Only a few very old 'oddities' disturb that pattern. However, I can't be bothered analysing huge searches like 'sexy businesswoman', which could well have a different pattern.
I don't know about that at all, most all the searches I do have way more exclusive files in the first 200 than nonexclusive files, like 90% on a lot of searches. 92% of the first 200 for 'new york city', 95% for 'businesswoman'. Is it honestly your belief that if you gave up exclusivity your files would get better best match treatment? I don't believe that for one second.
2737
« on: August 12, 2013, 11:38 »
I make 0% of my income at IS, so I'm going with mathematically impossible. 
Can't argue with that.
In all seriousness, 30% I would think would be the point you should start looking at it. Anything below that seems like an unsafe bet.
Right now I'd say 20% is pretty much a guarantee and 10% isn't crazy (and for embermike, 5% is possible). Minimally pricing differences are around 4x and royalty rates are 2x so without considering search position, moving up a level from higher RCs, higher PP earnings, Vetta, S+, or Getty you would be making 8x more per sale. It's probably different for illustrators, I don't really have much of an idea what's going on there these days.
8 times your current? That's a fantasy land.
8x current RPD, right now. I don't think that's really in dispute, is it? All nonexclusive images are 1-7 credits, S pricing(which all new exclusive content goes into and most every old file with a sale) is at 5-28 credits so about 4x. Royalty rates are about 2x for exclusives over nonexclusives. 2x and 4x is 8x. That assumes none of your files are moved to S+ or Vetta in which case the price goes to about 8x and 23x respectively, with RPD increases of 16x and 30x.
2738
« on: August 12, 2013, 11:16 »
I make 0% of my income at IS, so I'm going with mathematically impossible.
Can't argue with that.
In all seriousness, 30% I would think would be the point you should start looking at it. Anything below that seems like an unsafe bet.
Right now I'd say 20% is pretty much a guarantee and 10% isn't crazy (and for embermike, 5% is possible). Minimally pricing differences are around 4x and royalty rates are 2x so without considering search position, moving up a level from higher RCs, higher PP earnings, Vetta, S+, or Getty you would be making 8x more per sale. It's probably different for illustrators, I don't really have much of an idea what's going on there these days.
2739
« on: August 12, 2013, 11:02 »
I make 0% of my income at IS, so I'm going with mathematically impossible.
Can't argue with that.
2740
« on: August 12, 2013, 10:23 »
Actually you said there was no possible way the math would work out and I gave a scenario where it would, I didn't say you would make that, just that it was mathematically possible. Especially now look at the difference in pricing between an XXXL non exclusive and an XXXL Vetta, it's 23 times more and add to that the increase in royalty % and you're at 30x. I'm not saying all your content would be made Vetta, just that it is a mathematical possibility which you said it wasn't. Hopefully this cleared up your misunderstanding a little.
ETA my own estimate for how much I would lose at Istock by going nonexclusive is over 90%.
Mathematically possible? Sure, fine. But I'm not running my business on long-shot remote possibilities.
It still seems like it is your belief that it is possible that anyone, even someone like me with so low of a percentage of my income coming from istock, can do better with the crown. And yet everything I've seen and heard tells me that it is impossible my earnings would multiple by 20x if I were exclusive. Have you ever heard of a case where someone's income jumped that much when they became exclusive? The best I've ever heard of is folks reporting 3x or 4x previous earnings.
I just think it's kind of funny that you'll call other people dismissive when it is pretty clear you aren't really open to any beliefs and assumptions other than your own.
These are your exact words "I know that if my istock income is 5% of my total monthly microstock income, there is no mathematical way possible that going exclusive would make up the missing 95%." It is mathematically possible, that's all I said. If a large portion of your files gets moved to Vetta (remember you get 30+ times more from that) then it is possible. Also you get Getty sales, for some people those equal Istock sales, for me it's about 33% of Istock sales. From my own numbers I would guess that dropping exclusivity would result in at least 90% reduction in earnings and I don't have a lot of Vetta files, people with a good amount of Vetta files would drop much further. I don't think I'm being dismissive at all, I'm looking at all of the data available and making an educated guess that you don't agree with.
2741
« on: August 12, 2013, 09:38 »
\
2742
« on: August 12, 2013, 09:31 »
Well, I would consider myself a fairly "average" exclusive, but like ShadySue, I don't make anywhere near $2500/month on iStock, and even my BME isn't close.
I suspect it's a case where the sample size and variation is such that the average isn't very representative; it is likely skewed by a few very high earners against a large number of moderate sellers. I would think the median figure given in the poll, $12,405/annum, is much closer to the experience for most of us. Certainly it's a lot more like mine.
There are a lot of people doing it full time and $12,000 is nowhere near enough for a full time living so I'm pretty sure there are many people making more than that.
But the figures from the poll you are quoting don't refer only to full time exclusives.
Right, my only point about this was that the poll should have the maximum amount one can enter raised from $2500. The poll is supposed to be showing an average though, not a median. I would guess you are correct about the median for an exclusive here being close to $12,000/year but there are at least a few people making a full time living at it and it doesn't really make sense to not count them in the polls. This is the "Professional Microstock Forum" and limiting the maximum income allowed in the poll to $30,000 doesn't seem quite high enough for professionals.
2743
« on: August 12, 2013, 09:19 »
Since the collections change farce, it seems that only the 'in crowd' get their files made Vetta or S+ - there are a lot of complaints about it over on the iS forums. So if you are already in that group, fair enough; but it's unlikely a new 'real' exclusive would get these promotions. The new faux-exclusives have their own deal.
So mathematically possible, maybe, but very hypothetical.
Then there's the question as to whether your one's higher-priced files would sell.
Your personal experience doesn't appear to be the norm for posters here or over there; I accept that there are plenty of iS exclusives at all points on the scale who don't post to forums.
I'm certainly not part of any 'in-crowd' at iStock but I'm still getting a few Vettas and S+ images in.
It feels like the Vetta / S+ criteria has returned to normal (i.e. your best images in great light of interesting subjects) to me.
Since they removed the Vetta limits I'm also bolder in selecting images to be judged for those collections too.
None of this diminishes any of the other problems there, but I don't think this is one.
I'm not in any in crowd either. I've actually held off on uploading most of my new content for a couple of months and focused more on creating work for when things get fixed. Shady I haven't heard how new exclusives files are getting treated, when they changed the collections they automatically moved up files that sold a lot.
2744
« on: August 12, 2013, 00:16 »
\
2745
« on: August 11, 2013, 20:57 »
I never dismissed you. From what I remember I agreed with you that it wouldn't make sense for you to go exclusive. There are lots of people that it probably doesn't make sense for, I think that's clear. I can't remember ever, even once, saying that everyone (or even most people) should be exclusive.
Actually, you kinda did. I mentioned that I make only 5% of my microstock income from istock and there's no way I'd make up the difference by being exclusive, and you suggested that with Vetta and the increased earnings percentage, it might be possible.
In reality I think we both know it was just wishful thinking on your part that it is even remotely possible that anyone could make up the missing 95%. People have reported nice gains from going exclusive, but a jump of 20x current earnings? Come on.
If that's not dismissing the fact that I'd be worse off as an exclusive, I'm not sure what is.
Actually you said there was no possible way the math would work out and I gave a scenario where it would, I didn't say you would make that, just that it was mathematically possible. Especially now look at the difference in pricing between an XXXL non exclusive and an XXXL Vetta, it's 23 times more and add to that the increase in royalty % and you're at 30x. I'm not saying all your content would be made Vetta, just that it is a mathematical possibility which you said it wasn't. Hopefully this cleared up your misunderstanding a little. ETA my own estimate for how much I would lose at Istock by going nonexclusive is over 90%.
2746
« on: August 11, 2013, 19:41 »
...It sounds to me like you just dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your assumptions.
No offense but aren't you doing the same? You seem to be on this mission to get people to believe that being exclusive is far superior to the alternative, and you seem to be equally dismissive of anything that suggests otherwise. In our direct exchanges on the subject, you've completely dismissed my stance on the subject, even though my own numbers are pretty clear on where I'm better off.
I seriously wonder why you bother with all of this. Why does it matter to you that some of us just don't like the exclusive offer and really are better off without it?
I never dismissed you. From what I remember I agreed with you that it wouldn't make sense for you to go exclusive. There are lots of people that it probably doesn't make sense for, I think that's clear. I can't remember ever, even once, saying that everyone (or even most people) should be exclusive.
2747
« on: August 11, 2013, 19:14 »
So if my own numbers, the monthly poll, and the yearly polls aren't acceptable which numbers do you take to be ok? It sounds to me like you just dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your assumptions.
No. I'm only dismissing your 'numbers' that are based on nothing at all. If I drove down a road and happened to see 2 rabbits and one cow, by your assumptions, there therefore must be twice as many rabbits as cows in the world. Even more bizarrely, you've even managed to extrapolate, supposedly, how much the average rabbit must be earning! Are you really so stupid that you don't appreciate that you can't actually multiply bananas by coconuts to work out how apples per square metre you will need to tile your bathroom? That's how ridiculous your extrapolations are.
I understand your thing is to try to be as insulting as possible in order to get a rise out of people, once again your first impulse is to resort to name calling. I can only assume you are a sad, pathetic, jealous old man.
2748
« on: August 11, 2013, 17:05 »
Well, I would consider myself a fairly "average" exclusive, but like ShadySue, I don't make anywhere near $2500/month on iStock, and even my BME isn't close.
I suspect it's a case where the sample size and variation is such that the average isn't very representative; it is likely skewed by a few very high earners against a large number of moderate sellers. I would think the median figure given in the poll, $12,405/annum, is much closer to the experience for most of us. Certainly it's a lot more like mine.
There are a lot of people doing it full time and $12,000 is nowhere near enough for a full time living so I'm pretty sure there are many people making more than that.
Gosh! Thanks for that. You really know how to do your research don't you? At the risk of paraphrasing you, "I'm pretty sure" that you haven't got a * clue what you are talking about!
You are just pulling numbers, any numbers, out of the air and using them to support your hilarious and absurd assumptions about the obviously failing Istockphoto and the income of their unfortunate and gullible exclusives, of which sadly, you are one (but probably not for too much longer).
So if my own numbers, the monthly poll, and the yearly polls aren't acceptable which numbers do you take to be ok? It sounds to me like you just dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your assumptions.
2749
« on: August 11, 2013, 16:03 »
Well, I would consider myself a fairly "average" exclusive, but like ShadySue, I don't make anywhere near $2500/month on iStock, and even my BME isn't close.
I suspect it's a case where the sample size and variation is such that the average isn't very representative; it is likely skewed by a few very high earners against a large number of moderate sellers. I would think the median figure given in the poll, $12,405/annum, is much closer to the experience for most of us. Certainly it's a lot more like mine.
There are a lot of people doing it full time and $12,000 is nowhere near enough for a full time living so I'm pretty sure there are many people making more than that.
2750
« on: August 11, 2013, 11:41 »
A few years ago the average exclusive was making $30,000 per year (or $2500/month) so lots of exclusives now have their income under represented in the poll.
Where do you get that figure and how are you working it out?
When iStockStats was working (preRCs), for a long time I was always around position 1880-5 in downloads. That was among all contributors, not just exclusives, and at that time there were said to be IIRC something around 4000-5000 exclusives. So I'd say that put me a bit above the average for exclusives for downloads. The top people would be earning much more, but some of the top downloaded togs were indies, just like now.
I can assure you that as an apparent 'average' exclusive at the time, I was earning quite a bit less than half of that.
So, where are you getting the 'average exclusive was earning $2500pm' figure from? No doubt a very few at the top were earning more than that, but I doubt very much if even the 'average earned by exclusives' was anything like that.
From the yearly poll here, should be about the same people answering the monthly poll so I chose that group. I meant it to be the average of people that participate on MSG, all the numbers would be much lower if you took into account people that uploaded 1 image in 2005 and never thought about it again. Your numbers would be for the median contributor not the average.
How utterly ridiculous. That's the most laughable 'extrapolation' of a tiny, non-representative, self-selecting, non-verifiable piece of 'data' I have ever had the misfortune to observe.
So apparently a lot of people find that the poll has NO reason to exist (because they don't like the results of it maybe?). If the poll contains no data then perhaps we should ask Leaf to get rid of it. I think you are misreading what I'm saying also, there is no extrapolation. I'm talking just about this small group of contributors who participate on MSG and fill out the poll. I would rather compare myself to a selfselected group of contributors that are active in this industry, I don't see it being beneficial to look at the 75%(or whatever number) of contributors that are not active. That group is not representative of me and doesn't add anything to my understanding of the business. The point of that statement of mine was that $2500/month was too low of a maximum because according to the yearly poll the average exclusive made that much. Setting the maximum at the average seems to me to keep the number lower than it should be. And here is what I was talking about: http://blog.microstockgroup.com/microstock-income-vs-portfolio-size/
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
