Your figures are either intentionally misleading or you just want to ignore that RPI between the two agencies is an irrelevant creative number the way you figured it. Of course they are going to have a lower RPI, because they have 300% more images for buyers to choose from.

ALAMY: The average price of all images sold in 2008 was $152.66 (78% RM images sold for average of $135.5 and 22% RF for $213.5).

What's the average price for a sale on IS? 

True, and I agree with you, Alamy is no salvation, it's just another outlet for images, with a different market, pricing and buyers.

I'm not sure I understand you here? How is RPI 'an irrelevant creative number' when comparing between the two agencies? If Alamy has 300% more images then why aren't they producing 300% more revenue for example __ instead of less than one tenth?

An average image sale at IS would appear to be about $6 (based on 5000 of my own sales this year).

So, using the figures quoted earlier, an 'average' portfolio of 1000 images on IS should generate $32K in total per year which would be worth $6400 to an independent contributor.

If that portfolio was instead placed on Alamy then it should generate about $1000 per year and presumably be worth about $650 to the contributor.

Are those figures wrong or am I missing something somewhere? I know we are comparing IS numbers for 2009 and Alamy's from 2008 but that shouldn't make a huge difference.

I've been meaning to upload to Alamy for years but, from the statistics I read and reports from friends/colleagues who are there, I struggle to find the incentive to do so __ with the possible exception of editorial images.

SS especially, which most estimates put their percentage of payout compared to total image sale value at less than 20%.

"Most estimates" By who?

Can you actually support that statement in any way with links/quotes?

sharpshot, admittedly I have only been in this a few months.  I am getting twenty-five cents per sale.  Yet you are saying prices, - even for subscriptions - have "gone up a lot".   


When many of us started on SS we were getting 20c but it had risen to 38c well within 4 years __ that's quite a significant rise albeit from a low base. The problem with the sub model is that the customer is likely to be more price-sensitive which then makes it difficult for a particular agency to increase prices.

Interesting points Hoi Ha but I don't think I concur too closely with your conclusions. For starters, we're now four to five years into this game and yet IS is still as big as all the others put together. The main reason that keeps them well ahead of the pack is indeed their exclusives. This is a decision that has been imposed upon them from afar, I'm quite sure.

I'm also pleasantly surprised that there are still relatively few of us serious contributors. There are still fewer than 500 contributors with 1500 images or more on IS for example. You say that rejections are increasing but I haven't found this at all. I consider myself fortunate that I got in early and was able to learn at about the same pace as the quality standard increased. I think the barriers to entry for newbies, in terms of technical quality and saleability, are getting very high and I'd hate to be starting now. Even when they do get an image accepted the competition for sales is much fiercer now so they'll find it less encouraging. Meanwhile the top few hundred contributors will keep plugging away uploading and portfolios of 10K+ will be commonplace amongst them in another 4-5 years. Supply of images may be infinite but not supply of the good stuff.

As far as the IS business model is doing, you can work it out for yourself, all the numbers are on display __ and they're doing very indeed. They need this like they need a kick in the head.

No Drama Oringer doesn't have the same ring to it that No Drama Obama has, but it is equally apt

It's still good!

We could call him 'Honest Jon' but it makes him sound like a used-car salesman.

The feeling is that any exclusive boost in the BM2.0 sort has swung a bit too far to the independent side this time.

It's not so much 'swung a bit too far', it's simply been removed __ as it should. Let the images compete on equal ground. It seems to me that 90% of images/contributors nowadays are exclusive anyway so it is unlikley to have made any difference to you.

Truth is sales are down for almost everyone. Just check out that German chart which is now a sea of red. I can't see any pattern there with exclusives down and independents up.

Good idea but it makes me wonder how that are going to find the duplicates. Do you suppose they have similar technology to Tin-Eye?

NB: For those not aware Tin-Eye scans the internet to find images in use.

Add to that the fact that they are reanimating all the dollar bin images that "timed out" due to non-sales for 28 days. They've started with exclusives but with few exceptions all the rest post-2005 will follow.

That smacks of desperation. Don't forget that many of us have already been there for several months with large portfolios of our best images. At those volumes, even at 30c a pop, it makes very little difference __ apart from the fact that it does appear to damage your PPD sales. You're welcome to it.

Can you make an average of $3 on each download where your at ? Can you explain to me your ROI of each image ? If you haven't been there then it really a mute point. I myself have been on both sides of the fence. And without any doubt I make much more there, being exclusive, than I did in 5 other sites combined. So to each thier own.

I'm not so bothered about 'the ROI on each image' as I consider it to be a fairly meaningless statistic __ I can't buy beer with ROI. I have a portfolio of 2000+ images and collectively I want it to make as much money as possible each month.

I've been at Diamond level for a couple of years and IS have only been over 40% of my total earnings on two occasions (which itself would be a 20% loss to me). IS have also dipped to 27% in that time too which would have meant a 46% loss. Enjoy the roller coaster ride __ looks like it might be bumpy ahead.

I don't look at forums as anything other than a round table where you can think out loud, which includes changing your mind about anything you want to.

Why not start your own topic and call it "Stacey Thinks Out Loud and Changes Her Mind". Then you could write down everything that came into your head, all day and every day __ and we could come and read it and join in if we wanted to. That would be fun.

One time you post one thing and in the next minute your contradicting even your own post. I think if you had any sense of how you sounded you would be quite embarrassed. You have every right to express an opinion. No one argues that. But at least have it one way or the other. Stop being so wishy washy.

Beautifully summarised Justme.

Stacey, I expressed my irritation because you write endless posts, all the time and everywhere, without actually saying anything or even having ownership of an opinion ... on anything at all. I can only assume that you're on some sort of ego trip seeing your meaningless drivel on screen. Trouble it gets in the way of the important stuff here that people are trying to read/respond.

As far as I'm aware, istock had nothing to do with the arrangement at StockXpert so the fact it has been transferred over to istock makes it apparent the idea came from Getty. If istock did turn round to Getty and say "you're right, it's a great deal for istock, lets do it" then why has no-one from HQ been able to come up with anything to back up why this deal is good for contributors and won't just be a repeat of StockXpert?

The StockXpert idea/implementation was down to Jupiter who weren't part of Getty at the time. Now that Jupiter have been bought by Getty it's reasonable to assume it is the same people at Jupiter who want the IS library to boost their own sites.

Historically IS have always been totally against the standard subscription model and also justifiably proud of their exclusive contributors. Being as this deal drives a coach and horses through both of those principles (as well as setting an extremely dangerous precedent in reducing the exclusive bonus) I struggle to believe IS staff would have been enthusiastic about the idea.

Let me just say this has to be the most stupid decision IStock and Getty have ever made.

Nah __ they've got such a painfully sycophantic bunch of 'proud to be exclusive' followers that they'll just get away it. Again.

Remember how they all detested those nasty big corporations like Getty (Enemy #1 at the time) __ right up to the point when Brucie sold out to them. Within a couple of weeks they were all woo-yaying how proud they were to be part of Getty!

Wait for the shrill cries to die down a bit, give them a couple of minor concessions and then roll it out with barely a murmur. They can just remove the opt-out later when the fuss has died down.