|
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 - Spectre
Pages: [1]
1
« on: August 26, 2009, 13:36 »
Does anyone else have issue with the earnings rates for the new trial level of On Demand subscriptions? The new trial package ( http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=67627 ) is 2 any size for $29, or 5 small/medium for $29. That makes for an earning percentage of: | < $500 | < $3000 | < $10000 | $10000+ | | 5/$29 | 13.97% | 18.45% | 20.17% | 21.38% | | 2/$29 | 12.97% | 17.10% | 18.62% | 19.66% |
Below is a chart of the earning percentages for the current packages. | < $500 | < $3000 | < $10000 | $10000+ | | 12/$49 | 19.84% | 26.20% | 28.65% | 30.37% | | 5/$49 | 19.18% | 25.31% | 27.55% | 29.08% | | 60/$229 | 21.22% | 28.03% | 30.66% | 32.49% | | 25/$229 | 20.52% | 27.07% | 29.48% | 31.11% |
Istock's industry low 20% earnings rate was broken with Shutterstock's $49 On Demand package, but only for those with earnings under $500 total. But their new plan is currently paying out less than istock's rate across the board. SS's forum announcement included: Downloads from these plans will be paid out at the same rate as other On Demand downloads, according to your royalty level. We will consider adjusting the payout rate for OD downloads once we fully understand the impact the new plans have on total sales. But no details about what sort of adjustments, if any, will be made. Meanwhile they're taking as much as 87% commission on the sale of your image. (Yes, you made $1.88, and they got a $12.62 commission)
2
« on: April 01, 2009, 08:50 »
And it is really amazing that people are doing well despite the bad economy. Maybe this is a sign that things are getting better! 
I suspect that given the economic issues of late, the subscription model is fading from favor and going into an on demand model. As advertising budgets are getting slashed, they are cutting out the large per month fees when they can, and opting instead for an as needed single download model. I've seen a significant 'shift' in earnings from shutterstock to istock, and the theory seems to fit that.
3
« on: April 01, 2009, 08:48 »
Istock: 44% SS: 19% SX: 17% FP: 11% DS: 7% 123rf: 1% Cre: 0.3% I'm seeing a dramatic shift over the last few months. December and January, Shutterstock was the leader, with December being BME and accounting for 47%. January was down a little, still the leader but only 33%. Earnings slowly eroded, but bounced back in March a little to beat Feb, but still below december & january. Istock during that time had significant jumps. 126% earnings growth from November to December, 73% growth over previous BME (Oct). January was another BME, although only 29% growth over previous. However February signaled a big boost again, moving it to the best earning for the month, and 82% earnings growth from January. March was modest growth, 37%, but given the percentage of earnings that IS is for the last couple months, a significant amount (that 37% growth was 12% of total monthly earnings). istock had a 4 month head start over SS, and SS passed istocks total earnings within 3 months from starting there, and was significantly leading (total earnings as of Feb 1st were almost twice Istocks. In two months, istock took the lead back. The conspiracy side of me thinks it's because we're coming imminently close to exclusivity eligibility 
4
« on: March 06, 2009, 09:41 »
OH.... and the images are all already approved. Is it always that fast?
They vary from close to instantly to a couple days. I've been really happy with them; occasionally having stuff approved before I've even finished categorizing and model releaing things. From what I understand they come back after 3 days or so and make sure that you got the categorizing and model releases squared away. Not to mention the over 99% acceptance rate. I've gotten used to those acceptance rates being on sites that have near to no sales. Sales also have been good there, within 3 months they moved into the number #3 slot, ahead of dreamstime, behind IS and SS. Lots of photos.com and jupiter subscription sales that add up and fill in the gaps between regular sales that are always nice to see in this industry (with their 50% commission rates).
5
« on: February 26, 2009, 09:59 »
What's the rejection message for the files? I mean, did it say something like "We won't accept anymore over $15?". While we had our first couple rejections there in the last batch, they gave a valid reason that I'm cool with. Given that we're finally seeing sales there, I'm cool with them focusing their collection to keep the buyers interested and searching.
"we don't accept all "sunsets" images. The category is too big compare to other categories. Sorry."
"we are limiting the "sunsets" category. sorry."
considering there were 5 others in the batch that were primarily sunset that were taken... it's all good.
6
« on: February 03, 2009, 10:05 »
We had a release refused from Dreamstime (I know not Istock, so a bit off topic), but it brought up some very interesting thoughts/issues. DT basically said they didn't care.
The issue was the lack of a phone number/address from the model. The model wasn't comfortable giving up that information, as he's a doctor. Explaining it was difficult as his English wasn't the greatest, and he was the only french speaking person on the trip. Their claim was that without an address and phone number, they are suspect as to if the model truly signed it. However the model had supplied an e-mail address; which makes them just as (if not more) accessible then a foreign mailing address and phone number.
The issues that came to light with the rejection were... yes, while in general civilized life, everyone has a postal address and phone number. However when you go beyond the typical world that we live in, you are likely to find many interesting subjects that that have no postal address, nor a phone. Luckily the last time I was in a far away land (Micronesia), the locals we shot were able to use the address and phone of the boat that we were on and they were employed by and those were accepted.
7
« on: February 02, 2009, 13:46 »
January was quite a surprise, with the final week's daily sales significantly higher than the first 3 weeks daily average. The end result was 28% above the predicted expectation calculated on 1/21. The month was expected to be down from December, as there was very little uploading in January (figured much like november where sales dropped from the october BME). Monthly earnings breakdown | December | | January | | IS | 24.63% | 26.84% | | SS | 46.56% | 33.80% | | Dreamstime | 13.78% | 12.73% | | StockXpert | 13.73% | 22.44% | | 123rd | 0.89% | 4.00% | | crestock | 0.41% | 0.17% |
As you can see with the uploads below, december was expected to be big; and was BME across the board. Portfolio Growth | November | | December | | January | | IS | 0% | 31.33% | 0% | | SS | 3.75% | 22.41% | 9.86% | | DT | 4.91% | 27.34% | 0% | | SX | 0% | 74.47% | 6.70% | | 123 | 0% | 30.30% | 0% |
January was a surprise though with near to no uploading, yet BME's everywhere except shutterstock. Below shows dec growth vs. november and bme (since november was a rough month, down 28.20% from bme Oct) Earnings Growth | Dec vs. Nov | | Dec vs. BME | | Jan vs. Dec | | Overall | 140.51% | 72.68% | 18.65% | | IS | 126.29% | 72.94% | 29.31% | | SS | 170.02% | 39.22% | -13.85% | | DT | 136.45% | 52.66% | 9.60% | | SX | 107.50% | (same) | 93.98% |
Stockexpert definitely stands out, november was the first full month there, accounting for 15.9% of overall earnings. earnings in December were double (along with everyone else), but then almost double again in January, taking #3 spot by storm, and nipping close to the heals of istock for the #2 spot. Disclaimer Istock started January '08. Shutterstock, Dreamstime, 123rf, crestock July '08, stockxpert Oct '08. So new to the game and building portfolios.
Average portfolio size on top 4 earners: November: 105 images. December: 144 images. January: 151.
8
« on: February 02, 2009, 11:58 »
How can a website not be "worldwide" geographic distribution? 
Corbis has a nice pricing utility, and some nice descriptions about the different choices. for example, it specifically states "if you are licensing your image for a web-site usage, select the geographic distribution option that best represents the location of the site's primary audience" ( reference here) Zeus brings up a great point about regional sites, and if they only intend on using the image for one of the regional sites, that would also change the geographic distribution. When coming up with pricing, we try to give the client a break when they're regional but worldwide. e.g. an instructor in Florida that potentially draws students worldwide, their primary student base is going to be local, and we consider the distribution to be that. Now, things do change if you're talking exclusive vs. non-exclusive; and that's where you see significant need to increase prices based on geographic distribution. If you are going to give the website exclusivity, then they need to pay for the coverage they wish to have. If they want worldwide exclusivity within the education industry; then they definitely aren't going to be charged for just a US distribution; since it then limits us for sales to that industry in that region and regions that include the exclusivity region.
9
« on: December 19, 2008, 16:39 »
I was actually quite surprised the last batch of stuff that I put through IS; 22 for 24 when all was said and done.... much better than the 50-65% that's been going as of late. The part that was surprising me the most was the 3 to 4 day review times as opposed to the typical 10 day review times that have been experienced lately. My theory was they really liked 'em 
10
« on: December 11, 2008, 12:55 »
I have never seen this mentioned here so:
Yuri Arcurses girlfriend is exclusive on istock:
http://www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=2459931
That's one way to get exclusive images on IS without being an exclusive member! (not that I mean to imply that seriously)
11
« on: December 11, 2008, 12:11 »
FWIW, I was just running numbers the other day to determine prices vs. commissions on different sites, in order to help me chose prices on sites that allow you to set your pricing.
Since I did the work (not that it was hard) I thought I'd share the results. (note this is for non-exclusive)
price range royalty range
0-4 d/l
XS 0.2 $0.83 $1.00 $0.42 $0.50
S 0.4 $1.67 $2.00 $0.84 $1.00
M 3 $2.50 $3.00 $1.25 $1.50
L 5 $3.33 $4.00 $1.67 $2.00
XL 10 $4.17 $5.00 $2.09 $2.50
5-19 d/l
XS 0.2 $2.40 $3.00 $1.20 $1.50
S 0.4 $3.20 $4.00 $1.60 $2.00
M 3 $4.00 $5.00 $2.00 $2.50
L 5 $4.80 $6.00 $2.40 $3.00
XL 10 $5.60 $7.00 $2.80 $3.50
20-49 d/l
XS 0.2 $4.00 $5.00 $2.00 $2.50
S 0.4 $4.80 $6.00 $2.40 $3.00
M 3 $5.60 $7.00 $2.80 $3.50
L 5 $6.40 $8.00 $3.20 $4.00
XL 10 $7.20 $9.00 $3.60 $4.50
50-99 d/l
XS 0.2 $5.60 $7.00 $2.80 $3.50
S 0.4 $6.40 $8.00 $3.20 $4.00
M 3 $7.20 $9.00 $3.60 $4.50
L 5 $8.00 $10.00 $4.00 $5.00
XL 10 $8.80 $11.00 $4.40 $5.50
100+
XS 0.2 $7.20 $9.00 $3.60 $4.50
S 0.4 $8.00 $10.00 $4.00 $5.00
M 3 $8.80 $11.00 $4.40 $5.50
L 5 $9.60 $12.00 $4.80 $6.00
XL 10 $10.40 $13.00 $5.20 $6.50
12
« on: September 20, 2008, 14:41 »
I've had 3 image batches in daily. It seems one gets reviewed after 7 days, and then they sit. my 9/9 batch had one reviewed on 9/17 and two still sit in the queue, my 9/10 batch had one on 9/18, and my 9/11 batch had one yesterday, but the others still sit in the queue.
Pages: [1]
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
