pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5  (Read 18876 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Millionstock.com

  • Architecture; Arts; Historic buildings, Landscapes

« Reply #50 on: October 03, 2013, 18:13 »
+5
Self-Hosted cannot compete with subscription plans of the agencies, but can compete for sure with single downloads.
For me is enough to compete on single downloads now :)


« Reply #51 on: October 03, 2013, 18:18 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:27 by Audi 5000 »

Millionstock.com

  • Architecture; Arts; Historic buildings, Landscapes

« Reply #52 on: October 03, 2013, 18:28 »
0
Before setting the pricing of my portfolio I have calculated all the prices applied by agencies. Then I have decided to stay in the low side of the average. With my prices results are encouranging, for me of course

« Reply #53 on: October 03, 2013, 18:29 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:27 by Audi 5000 »

Millionstock.com

  • Architecture; Arts; Historic buildings, Landscapes

« Reply #54 on: October 03, 2013, 18:36 »
0
Of course Tickstock your info are useful to refine our strategy of Self-Hoster.

You can visit my site and give me your critique...they will be welcome :)

www.millionstock.com

EmberMike

« Reply #55 on: October 03, 2013, 18:49 »
+3
Looks like canstock and depositphotos are cheaper.

What's your point? There are lots of places people can get my stuff cheaper than I sell it at my own site, and yet I still get sales.

Should I abandon my self-hosted site just because I don't want to compete on price with some of the agencies?

« Reply #56 on: October 03, 2013, 19:03 »
+1
It's great to see everyone doing so well with their own sites and I hope it continues.  Congratulations to you all!  I haven't bothered myself due to lack of time and uncertainty over the return on effort but you almost have me convinced.

I think tickstock and Xanox have some valid questions that it would be interesting to have answered.  On the micros we report total sales as our profit since our costs are zero for the sites. However, for self hosted if you make $50 a month but it costs you that much in charges then you haven't made anything.  I assume people are reporting their total sales on self-hosted sites but that is not directly comparable to what we are reporting for the micros where we have no additional expenses.  To fix that, it would be better for self-hosted to be reported as net after monthly expenses, rather than total.  Then the numbers can be compared directly and if the numbers are still high then it would look very favorable.  The problem of a few high earners skewing the results would remain but that occurs also for the micros so I don't see that as a major issue.

If the government furlough continues much longer I will have plenty of time so it might be a good chance to get my own site started - plus I will actually need the money instead of it being just a nice addition.
Come one, everyone has production costs. Do you think Sean gets to shoot on an airport with a real plane for nothing? If I have to report my cost, then everyone has to report their cost. My hosting cost me 150 dollar for a year, Symbiostock cost me 100 dollar once off. So far I made 80 dollar on 5 sales. I need to make $170 more to break even and have 9 months to do that. Next year, without the cost for Symbiostock, and a one year established site with twice the amount of images, and better images, its a no brainer, it will be profitable. And I expect it to be profitable rather sooner then later.

You need to invest to make money, and more importantly, to break free from the agencies.

Obviously I was talking about costs for submission and not production costs  - production costs are the same whether the images are for sale by yourself or on an agency.  Recurring costs for Symbiostock or any other self-made site need to be factored into the balance when reporting sales or it gives a wrong impression.  You don't need to be so defensive every time someone responds to one of your posts.

« Reply #57 on: October 03, 2013, 19:12 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:27 by Audi 5000 »

Leo Blanchette

« Reply #58 on: October 03, 2013, 19:27 »
+4
This conversation is way too speculative.

As people gain access to the means of production, competition increases. As people gain access to the means of selling, independence increases.

Alls thats left - when people gain access to the means of marketing *ahem social networks* ...

To this day I've always wanted to use all of MSG's smileys in one post. I guess I should do it now..

 :) ;) :D ;D >:( :( :o 8) ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'(

« Reply #59 on: October 03, 2013, 19:30 »
0
.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2014, 09:27 by Audi 5000 »

« Reply #60 on: October 04, 2013, 18:38 »
0
Much as we would all like it to be, this is not really statistically valid in the same way the number for IS exclusives is not valid.  The ranking over on the right is generally reasonable because it represents the same cross-section of contributors across the sites.  Both the IS and self-hosted numbers represent a relatively elite subset of contributors whose numbers are not diluted by the great unwashed.  A more accurate result would be obtained by, for example, extracting the SS and self-hosted numbers for those who report earnings on both and deriving the self-hosted result based on the resulting % of ss performance.  Not an option for exclusives unfortunately.
Why are istock exclusive numbers not statistically valid?
Because the numbers only include istock exclusives of course.

When you figure out a way to include non-exclusives in the exclusive numbers and make it more statistically valid then the poll get back to us will ya.

Not valid in that you can't really infer relative performance as the average IS exclusive contributor would have sales that put him / her probably in the top 10% of contributors generally.  As to how to make it more representative, I believe I said you couldn't.  Mind you, RPI might give a better picture but only a bit better because it would only remove the port size element of the equation, not the commercial performance of the images.
If you went exclusive right now would you be in the top 10%?  You only need 250 downloads to become exclusive.

Note use of the word "average".  250 sales as rock bottom minimum and a 50% acceptance achieved when there were standards (stupid one dimensional standards in relation to some material but standards nonetheless).  At the other end you have guys with thousands of images and hundreds of thousands of sales.  If the poll excluded anyone with less than 250 dls on a single site, the numbers would be very different.

« Reply #61 on: October 04, 2013, 23:18 »
+1

That's why I said I wonder who these mystery contributors are that have self hosted sites that sell as well or better than cthoman with 20,000 vectors.  I'm sure there are a couple that do ok, but that still doesn't seem like it would be enough to give the result in the poll.  Granted there could be people here that never talk about their self hosted site and do make thousands a month.

what does cthoman's port have to do with anything?  results are averaged -- 1 or 2 sales self hosted can easily beat all the bottom dwellers


« Reply #62 on: October 04, 2013, 23:21 »
0
Much as we would all like it to be, this is not really statistically valid in the same way the number for IS exclusives is not valid.  The ranking over on the right is generally reasonable because it represents the same cross-section of contributors across the sites.  Both the IS and self-hosted numbers represent a relatively elite subset of contributors whose numbers are not diluted by the great unwashed.  A more accurate result would be obtained by, for example, extracting the SS and self-hosted numbers for those who report earnings on both and deriving the self-hosted result based on the resulting % of ss performance.  Not an option for exclusives unfortunately.

exclusives are different, but self hosted also use agencies for the most part

« Reply #63 on: October 04, 2013, 23:25 »
+1

 

Obviously I was talking about costs for submission and not production costs  - production costs are the same whether the images are for sale by yourself or on an agency.  Recurring costs for Symbiostock or any other self-made site need to be factored into the balance when reporting sales or it gives a wrong impression.  You don't need to be so defensive every time someone responds to one of your posts.

only recurring cost for a symsite is the $5-10 / mo for hosting

« Reply #64 on: October 05, 2013, 09:58 »
0
Much as we would all like it to be, this is not really statistically valid in the same way the number for IS exclusives is not valid.  The ranking over on the right is generally reasonable because it represents the same cross-section of contributors across the sites.  Both the IS and self-hosted numbers represent a relatively elite subset of contributors whose numbers are not diluted by the great unwashed.  A more accurate result would be obtained by, for example, extracting the SS and self-hosted numbers for those who report earnings on both and deriving the self-hosted result based on the resulting % of ss performance.  Not an option for exclusives unfortunately.

exclusives are different, but self hosted also use agencies for the most part

The kingdom of heaven is like...

Ok what you say is true and understood.  As an analogy, the average 100 m sprint time of all the athletes participating in the olympics  (would include weight lifters, archers as well as long and medium distance runners etc) is still going to beat the average sprint time of all the athletes + all the spectators.

Ron

« Reply #65 on: October 26, 2013, 01:15 »
0
Somebody pointed out that self hosted made it into the top 3 .... WOW

« Reply #66 on: October 26, 2013, 01:31 »
0
Somebody pointed out that self hosted made it into the top 3 .... WOW

woah.. it'll be interesting to see if it stays up there

Ron

« Reply #67 on: October 26, 2013, 01:41 »
0
Somebody pointed out that self hosted made it into the top 3 .... WOW

woah.. it'll be interesting to see if it stays up there

Can you see if anything funny happened or if this is a real result?

« Reply #68 on: October 26, 2013, 02:47 »
+1
It does seem incredible.  I'd like to know what percentage of "Self-Hosted" is Symbiostock sites?

« Reply #69 on: October 26, 2013, 03:16 »
-3
Just forget that whole poll already, it's so obviously useless.

« Reply #70 on: October 26, 2013, 05:19 »
+1
Wow! Top three now. Congratulations all of you engaged in this. I need to try to work out how to join you.

« Reply #71 on: October 26, 2013, 05:29 »
+1
Somebody pointed out that self hosted made it into the top 3 .... WOW

woah.. it'll be interesting to see if it stays up there

It's unrealistic.. I believe many self hosted people don't submit to a lot of agencies.. my self hosted results are good but it's impossible symbiostock is already making better than top 4-5..

Yes it could be middle tier but no way it is top tier yet..

« Reply #72 on: October 26, 2013, 05:58 »
0
I believe the numbers are skewed for reasons I've already said above.  I guess the real question is to those who have similar ports across self hosted and the top sites - do these numbers reflect the proportions you are actually seeing?

« Reply #73 on: October 26, 2013, 06:09 »
+1
Some of the top contributors had their own self hosted sites before Symbiostock started.  So I think the poll probably reflects how they are doing with photoshelter, ktools or whatever platform they used.  I've no doubt there's a few doing quite well with Symbiostock but I really don't think that it would get such a high earnings rating on its own this early on.

As Symbiostock is such an interesting development, I'd love to see it on its own in the poll.  It might be quite low down now but it would be great to see it creeping up.

Ron

« Reply #74 on: October 26, 2013, 06:45 »
+4
I think it just shows, that direct sales is not a bad option, photoshelter, smugmug, symbiostock, your own built site, it doesnt matter, direct sales is a serious option. Whichever way you want to approach it.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
4106 Views
Last post November 02, 2009, 17:27
by mantonino
48 Replies
7979 Views
Last post November 07, 2013, 22:17
by Leo Blanchette
23 Replies
7481 Views
Last post November 15, 2013, 16:12
by bunhill
10 Replies
2790 Views
Last post February 19, 2014, 05:05
by StockPhotosArt.com
32 Replies
7424 Views
Last post October 13, 2019, 14:09
by rinderart

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results