MicrostockGroup

Microstock Photography Forum - General => Selling Stock Direct => Topic started by: Ron on October 03, 2013, 10:23

Title: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Ron on October 03, 2013, 10:23
Well there it finally is. Self-Hosted    14.6 top 5 result.

We finally managed to get more than 50 votes, and self hosted is now registered on the poll. What a result.

I assume people will take notice now.

Everyone selling via Ktools, Smugmug, Symbiostock and other self hosted outlets can be proud of themselves. We did it, and how. What a result that is. I am thrilled to see self-hosted beating all agencies except for the big 4.

I am hoping we will see more people consider self-hosted. If its Ktools, Smugmug, Symbiostock, etc, etc, it doesnt matter, just do it. The return is so much more satisfying than any sale from an agency, for me it is anyways.

I know a few people said when self-hosted would show a result they would consider Symbiostock as a good option. Its time to get on board guys :)

Congratulations to all who made this happen. Great achievement, be proud.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cthoman on October 03, 2013, 11:37
Awesome!  ;D Every month, I kept wondering if this going to be the month where it gets enough votes. Well, I guess it was the month. Thanks everybody that voted and that took the effort to make a site for themselves.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Pilens on October 03, 2013, 11:50
...

Congratulations to all who made this happen. Great achievement, be proud.

+1

And what a jump! I didn't expect to see Self-Hosted on 5 right away. Great! ...and we are not that far from Top Tier, actually  ;D
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Xanox on October 03, 2013, 11:58
ok but how many sales is people having with self-hosted sites ?
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Ron on October 03, 2013, 12:05
ok but how many sales is people having with self-hosted sites ?

I dont know, I can only speak for myself, I didnt get a lot of downloads, but my RPD is $16. I am having monthly consecutive sales, and with only a few sales per month, its my 2nd/3rd earner. And that is only after 3 months of starting my own site.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cascoly on October 03, 2013, 12:07
ok but how many sales is people having with self-hosted sites ?


more than:

123RF 12.2 arrow   
 DepositPhotos 9.5 arrow   
 Alamy 8.1 arrow   
 Pond5 7.7 arrow   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Low Earners
 Bigstockphoto 6.6 arrow   
 Envato 6.2 arrow   
 Canstockphoto 5.5 arrow   
 Veer 4.7 arrow   
 GLStockImages 2.2 arrow   
 Zoonar 1.6 arrow   
 YayMicro 1.3 arrow   
 PantherMedia 1 arrow   
 Stockfresh 1 arrow   
 FeaturePics 0.9 arrow   
 MostPhotos 0.9 arrow   
 Cutcaster 0.8 arrow   
 Crestock 0.7 arrow   
 ClipartOf
 Stocksy
 RevoStock
 VectorStock
 Clipcanvas
 SignElements
 ImageVortex
 PhotoCase
 PhotoSpin
 ClipDealer
 ScanStockPhoto
 Pixmac
 DrawShop
 PhotoKore
 photaki
 Stockami
 The3dStudio
 PocketStock
 Vivozoom
 StockPhotoMedia
 ViscoImages
 Imagegate
 Macrografiks
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Ron on October 03, 2013, 12:13
I think Xanox meant downloads.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 12:15
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cthoman on October 03, 2013, 12:29
To get these results with 50 respondents you could have 1 person say $2500 and 1 person say $1500 and 48 people say $0.   14.6x$5 is $73 average, total earnings for 50 people would be $3650.  I think cthoman and sjlocke might be inflating the results.  From what little I've seen it seems a lot of people aren't even covering the cost of hosting their sites.  That said, I guess it's good that at least 50 people are trying to license their work without an agency.

Thanks for the compliment, but... My numbers from last month were under $300, so I'm definitely not propping it up all that much.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 12:31
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Ron on October 03, 2013, 12:38
Seriously tickstock, cant you for once just share in the joy? You downtalk everything. Its really getting old now. Why even bother commenting on stuff you are not part of, whatsoever.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cobalt on October 03, 2013, 12:42
I´m really happy to see this. It should encourage many artists to at least try it.

And just in time for my next workshop on stock photography on Sunday :)
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 12:42
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: ShadySue on October 03, 2013, 12:46
With 20,000 vectors?  It's hard to believe that the average is $70 then.
It probably could be that the people who would be early adopters of self-selling  would be people who know that they have a personal buyer base, therefore not so surprising.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: djpadavona on October 03, 2013, 12:52
The one caveat to take home is that for the most part, self-hosted sites are owned by highly successful, established portfolios. Someone with 150 images making $75 per month at the micros probably isn't going to find self-hosting to be profitable once monthly fees are considered. I don't have the stats to back it up but I would guess almost everyone contributes to the Top 4, whereas the self-hosted category is probably heavily weighted toward large, successful portfolios. So it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison because the less successful ports bring down the overall numbers of the Top 4. What would be more interesting would be to see how sites and self-hosting compare by looking at similar tiers of overall earnings per month.

I'm 100% behind self-hosting, but I don't want to see a bunch of smaller contributors throw a lot of money at software packages and hosting only to be disappointed. I can tell you that I make significantly more (like 6x to 10x) at Pond5, Alamy,and DT than I do through self-hosting.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: djpadavona on October 03, 2013, 12:53
I could have saved a lot of typing by just quoting Shady Sue   ;D
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cthoman on October 03, 2013, 12:54
...and the person I would assume is making the most by far is at $300.

Sorry to disappoint, but I've never been a big fish.  ;D My income has always been fairly spread out too.

As far as the numbers, I actually thought they would have come in lower. Maybe, at 5.5 or 6, so I'm pleasantly surprised to see it so high on the poll. So, I guess it exceeded my expectations.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 12:55
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: djpadavona on October 03, 2013, 12:57

Sorry to disappoint, but I've never been a big fish. 

From now on I request that people stop referring to each other by fish size, and simply acknowledge that we are not professionals.  :-*
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 12:59
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Ron on October 03, 2013, 13:07
The one caveat to take home is that for the most part, self-hosted sites are owned by highly successful, established portfolios. Someone with 150 images making $75 per month at the micros probably isn't going to find self-hosting to be profitable once monthly fees are considered. I don't have the stats to back it up but I would guess almost everyone contributes to the Top 4, whereas the self-hosted category is probably heavily weighted toward large, successful portfolios. So it isn't an apples-to-apples comparison because the less successful ports bring down the overall numbers of the Top 4. What would be more interesting would be to see how sites and self-hosting compare by looking at similar tiers of overall earnings per month.

I'm 100% behind self-hosting, but I don't want to see a bunch of smaller contributors throw a lot of money at software packages and hosting only to be disappointed. I can tell you that I make significantly more (like 6x to 10x) at Pond5, Alamy,and DT than I do through self-hosting.

I dont have a big established portfolio, and the majority of the Symbiostock network dont have big portfolios, as far as I can see. I do agree with the general point you make, but I think there are as many small contributors, maybe more, than large established portfolios.

Come to think of it now, I do wonder how dashphoto is doing
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Xanox on October 03, 2013, 13:10
I think Xanox meant downloads.

well, just to have an idea, how many downloads vs number of images on sale for instance, and possibly in which industry : lifestyle, travel, whatever.

considering a Photoshelter standard account is 30$/month for 60GB of space or 50$ for 1TB  it's good to read many earn way more than the hosting costs.

the real issue is always the same : how can such a biz can scale further and how much it's gonna cost to acquire a new customer ? 10$ ? 20$ ? 100$ ?

Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cthoman on October 03, 2013, 13:12

Sorry to disappoint, but I've never been a big fish. 


From now on I request that people stop referring to each other by fish size, and simply acknowledge that we are not professionals.  :-*


Dang, but I already drew this:

http://www.mystockvectors.com/Fish_Underwater_g82-Cartoon_Big_Fish_Royalty_Free_Vector_Illustration_p20.html (http://www.mystockvectors.com/Fish_Underwater_g82-Cartoon_Big_Fish_Royalty_Free_Vector_Illustration_p20.html)

With 20,000 vectors?  It's hard to believe that the average is $70 then.

It probably could be that the people who would be early adopters of self-selling  would be people who know that they have a personal buyer base, therefore not so surprising.

Could be, I wonder who the mystery big sellers are.  Oh the intrigue!


My theory would be that there are a dozen or half dozen people similar to me. There are a few Illustrators out there who are likely candidates. I don't know who votes on the poll though because some of them only pop in here now and again. Then, there a bunch of people that sell one or two images a month, but they sell them for at least $10 a piece (as opposed to 50 cents a piece like at Big Stock or 123RF).

There might be a giant whale out there (does that count as a fish?), but I think it is probably just a lot of individuals having modest success growing their business.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: djpadavona on October 03, 2013, 13:16

I dont have a big established portfolio, and the majority of the Symbiostock network dont have big portfolios, as far as I can see. I do agree with the general point you make, but I think there are as many small contributors, maybe more, than large established portfolios.

It depends on perspective. I make roughly $400 to $500 per month from micro with about 250 to 600 images (depending on the site). That puts me well below the numbers being reported here, but most everyone on this board is successful already. The reality is that most contributors never make payout (we have heard this enough times over the years so I think there is truth to it). So my "meager" earnings probably puts in me in the top 25% of all contributors, if not better. That highly theoretical percentage is based on numbers I have read in interviews with various contributors and agency reps over the years. I'm very happy with how I am doing, but I make very little through self-hosting after costs.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 13:22
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: chromaco on October 03, 2013, 13:28
When you consider that just 2 sales per month at around $18 per sale would put Self Hosted into the middle tier its not that much of a stretch. You need to have at least one sale to even report, which should put anyone reporting at all ahead of Veer. An overall average of 4 sales a month isn't that unreasonable.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: sgoodwin4813 on October 03, 2013, 14:18
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.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Ron on October 03, 2013, 14:48
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.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: ShadySue on October 03, 2013, 15:19
My theory would be that there are a dozen or half dozen people similar to me. There are a few Illustrators out there who are likely candidates. I don't know who votes on the poll though because some of them only pop in here now and again. Then, there a bunch of people that sell one or two images a month, but they sell them for at least $10 a piece (as opposed to 50 cents a piece like at Big Stock or 123RF).

There might be a giant whale out there (does that count as a fish?), but I think it is probably just a lot of individuals having modest success growing their business.
If 12 out of 50 respondents are doing as well as you then the numbers would work out but I'm curious where the other 11 are?

You're anonymous - why shouldn't they be?
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 15:22
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: ShadySue on October 03, 2013, 15:32
My theory would be that there are a dozen or half dozen people similar to me. There are a few Illustrators out there who are likely candidates. I don't know who votes on the poll though because some of them only pop in here now and again. Then, there a bunch of people that sell one or two images a month, but they sell them for at least $10 a piece (as opposed to 50 cents a piece like at Big Stock or 123RF).

There might be a giant whale out there (does that count as a fish?), but I think it is probably just a lot of individuals having modest success growing their business.
If 12 out of 50 respondents are doing as well as you then the numbers would work out but I'm curious where the other 11 are?

You're anonymous - why shouldn't they be?
I'm not saying they shouldn't be anonymous, I'm saying I haven't seen anyone (by that I mean anyone, anonymous or not) besides cthoman post that they have made more than even $100 per month let alone $500.  Look in the symbiostock thread, there are people reporting their first or second sales of 5-10 dollars for the most part, no one there is posting that they are even at the average.
True, but we never know who is posting what (i.e. true or not) in the poll. Like I said, I was for a while posting both iS and Alamy figures, but that put me in iS indie, so now I only post iS, but that nixes my Alamy figures. Not that either of these would impress anyone.

Added: Although not as bad as my dial implies. Why does it keep reverting?
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 15:38
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Ron on October 03, 2013, 15:49
Are we allowed to enjoy the results now? Do we have your blessing?

Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: EmberMike on October 03, 2013, 15:54
I think people are thinking way too much about poll results. The poll is a very broad picture of what's going on out there. Remember it isn't that precise, it can be manipulated (no one has to prove they earned what they said they did), and it's capped (you can't enter anything above $2500).

So keeping in mind that the poll isn't perfect, nor could it ever be, I don't see why anyone would look at it and think one way or the other about Self-Hosted. Some people may be doing ok, some not so much, but you'd be hard-pressed to draw any real substantial conclusions about if it's worthwhile or not.

For me, it's worthwhile. I made $80 today on my site. Think I'll stick with it.
 
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 15:59
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Leo Blanchette on October 03, 2013, 16:15
I think people are thinking way too much about poll results. The poll is a very broad picture of what's going on out there. Remember it isn't that precise, it can be manipulated (no one has to prove they earned what they said they did), and it's capped (you can't enter anything above $2500).

So keeping in mind that the poll isn't perfect, nor could it ever be, I don't see why anyone would look at it and think one way or the other about Self-Hosted. Some people may be doing ok, some not so much, but you'd be hard-pressed to draw any real substantial conclusions about if it's worthwhile or not.

For me, it's worthwhile. I made $80 today on my site. Think I'll stick with it.
which site?
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: EmberMike on October 03, 2013, 16:22
which site?

See my signature.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Leo Blanchette on October 03, 2013, 16:45
Thanks. I'm just trying to get a rough idea of how well Symbiostock sites do for others. Many of the experienced sellers in stock tend to be the "strong silent types" so you never really hear when they are making their routine sales.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cthoman on October 03, 2013, 16:45
I think people are thinking way too much about poll results. The poll is a very broad picture of what's going on out there. Remember it isn't that precise, it can be manipulated (no one has to prove they earned what they said they did), and it's capped (you can't enter anything above $2500).

So keeping in mind that the poll isn't perfect, nor could it ever be, I don't see why anyone would look at it and think one way or the other about Self-Hosted. Some people may be doing ok, some not so much, but you'd be hard-pressed to draw any real substantial conclusions about if it's worthwhile or not.

For me, it's worthwhile. I made $80 today on my site. Think I'll stick with it.
So you're the one making all the money.  Good job.

Whew! Mystery solved. Mike has all the money.

Seriously though, I think you are reading too much into all the little crumbs of facts and figures people are dropping.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Copidosoma on October 03, 2013, 17:02
Are people considering sites like FAA, Smugmug and Zazzle as "self hosted" or are we restricting it only to Symbiostock?

If the former, I don't see any reason why having it show up at the top of the middle tier would be surprising at all.
The $150 I made off of FAA last month blows my IS earnings out of the water.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 17:05
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Ron on October 03, 2013, 17:10
FAA and Zazzle are not self hosted, I dont count them here.

Smugmug is more self-hosted I believe, because its like selling from your own domain.

Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: heywoody on October 03, 2013, 17:21
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.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Millionstock.com on October 03, 2013, 17:50
At last buyers are starting to understand that buying directly will save money and encourage the artists!!  :)

I'm happy to have invested my time on the development of my Simbiostock site  :)  :)  :)

I'm sure the next month numbers of Self-Hosted  will increase further!!!
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 17:52
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 17:57
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Leo Blanchette on October 03, 2013, 17:58

To license your entire portfolio on symbiostock at Large size would cost me $12,000.


If you get interested in www.clipartillustration.com (http://www.clipartillustration.com) get in touch with me and we can make a deal :D I can sell you my entire orange man collection for $500 as opposed to the huge amount otherwise. Buying in bulk works to both of our interests :D

Edit - silly me - I already have a deal like that up -- http://www.clipartillustration.com/image/complete-clipart-illustration-collection-of-the-orange-man-series/ (http://www.clipartillustration.com/image/complete-clipart-illustration-collection-of-the-orange-man-series/)
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 18:00
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: heywoody on October 03, 2013, 18:06
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.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 18:08
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Millionstock.com on October 03, 2013, 18:13
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 :)
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 18:18
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Millionstock.com on October 03, 2013, 18:28
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
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 18:29
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Millionstock.com on October 03, 2013, 18:36
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 (http://www.millionstock.com)
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: EmberMike on October 03, 2013, 18:49
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?
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: sgoodwin4813 on October 03, 2013, 19:03
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.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 19:12
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Leo Blanchette on October 03, 2013, 19:27
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 :-\ :-* :'(
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 03, 2013, 19:30
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: heywoody on October 04, 2013, 18:38
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.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cascoly on October 04, 2013, 23:18

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

Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cascoly on October 04, 2013, 23:21
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
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cascoly on October 04, 2013, 23:25

 

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
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: heywoody on October 05, 2013, 09:58
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.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Ron on October 26, 2013, 01:15
Somebody pointed out that self hosted made it into the top 3 .... WOW
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: leaf on October 26, 2013, 01:31
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
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Ron on October 26, 2013, 01:41
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?
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: sharpshot on October 26, 2013, 02:47
It does seem incredible.  I'd like to know what percentage of "Self-Hosted" is Symbiostock sites?
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: topol on October 26, 2013, 03:16
Just forget that whole poll already, it's so obviously useless.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: BaldricksTrousers on October 26, 2013, 05:19
Wow! Top three now. Congratulations all of you engaged in this. I need to try to work out how to join you.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cidepix on October 26, 2013, 05:29
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..
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: heywoody on October 26, 2013, 05:58
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?
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: sharpshot on October 26, 2013, 06:09
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.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Ron on October 26, 2013, 06:45
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.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cathyslife on October 26, 2013, 06:56
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.

I agree. I think a few are doing well because they did well already and already had other sites up that now link to SY. The added SEO benefits help them for sure.  Hopefully the more people come on board, those good results will filter down to the others.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Ron on October 26, 2013, 07:47
I dont see why its not possible for SH to be ranked so high. People tend to price higher on their own website and also get to keep 90-95% royalties (deducted fees). So if someone makes 100 dollar on IS per month by selling 100 images, and sells 3 images for 75 dollar on his own site, its not unlikely to get SH in the top 3. I wonder how high Stocksy ranks when they get 50 votes.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: alberto on October 26, 2013, 10:38
+1 Ron.
This isn't only Symbiostock sites. Reached 50 votes all the option to sell directly show that is possible to sell with less downloads and earn more. Probably it's unreal a third place at this time, but not impossible in future. Also I think that in the future a good self hosted site when get some stable buyer can be the top one earner for some of us. And I'm curious to see Stocksy, I expect it really high in the right side.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cthoman on October 26, 2013, 10:48
3rd place. Impressive.

On the downside, I think this is why I pulled away from a lot of the micro sites after I started getting sales at my own site. It really put in perspective how little I was making at some of them and what an awful job they were doing selling my images.  :o
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: heywoody on October 26, 2013, 10:55
I dont see why its not possible for SH to be ranked so high. People tend to price higher on their own website and also get to keep 90-95% royalties (deducted fees). So if someone makes 100 dollar on IS per month by selling 100 images, and sells 3 images for 75 dollar on his own site, its not unlikely to get SH in the top 3. I wonder how high Stocksy ranks when they get 50 votes.

In your own case, are you making $100 self hosted (or thereabouts) for every $300 @ SS?  This is what those numbers are saying
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Grafix04 on October 26, 2013, 11:01
Fantastic result! 

I haven't read the four pages of posts but just a couple of questions if I may. 

Is 'Self-Hosted' symbiostock earnings only or does it include all direct sales?  Does it include RM as well as RF?   I see Alamy is on the list too.  Does Alamy's portion include RM as well as RF? 

Can you sell RM with symbiostock or is it just RF only?
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Ron on October 26, 2013, 11:03
Its all earnings from direct sales
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Grafix04 on October 26, 2013, 11:39
Its all earnings from direct sales

Thanks Ron.  I did a search and found they don't include RM.  That's a shame. 
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: ShadySue on October 26, 2013, 13:01
  I see Alamy is on the list too.  Does Alamy's portion include RM as well as RF? 
It depends what people report. I only sell RM at Alamy.
However, if I post my Alamy stats, it punts me into iS indie, so now I've stopped posting Alamy figures.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cascoly on October 26, 2013, 14:19
I dont see why its not possible for SH to be ranked so high. People tend to price higher on their own website and also get to keep 90-95% royalties (deducted fees). So if someone makes 100 dollar on IS per month by selling 100 images, and sells 3 images for 75 dollar on his own site, its not unlikely to get SH in the top 3. I wonder how high Stocksy ranks when they get 50 votes.

for me symbio has been in3-5th position; same as with pond, it only takes a few sales to outperform the vast majority of micros with their penny increments
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Ron on October 26, 2013, 14:29
I dont see why its not possible for SH to be ranked so high. People tend to price higher on their own website and also get to keep 90-95% royalties (deducted fees). So if someone makes 100 dollar on IS per month by selling 100 images, and sells 3 images for 75 dollar on his own site, its not unlikely to get SH in the top 3. I wonder how high Stocksy ranks when they get 50 votes.

In your own case, are you making $100 self hosted (or thereabouts) for every $300 @ SS?  This is what those numbers are saying

For me no, but for some it may well be the case, or more. My own site makes me more per month than all middle tier, its just below FT and 123.

SS
123
FT
SYS
rest
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: heywoody on October 26, 2013, 18:39
So maybe a score of 10 (which is pretty impressive) would probably be a fair reflection?
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 26, 2013, 18:41
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cthoman on October 26, 2013, 18:49
There are people here that have an interest in inflating the ratings.

It's me. I make money gambling on the poll numbers.  ;)
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: heywoody on October 26, 2013, 19:02
So maybe a score of 10 (which is pretty impressive) would probably be a fair reflection?
There are people here that have an interest in inflating the ratings.

Possibly but more likely the difference is down to the cross-section of contributors that doesn't include the bottom feeders.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 26, 2013, 20:32
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: EmberMike on October 26, 2013, 21:57
There are people here that have an interest in inflating the ratings.

True but the same could be said for any of the poll choices. People have favorites, companies they want to see at the top, etc. On average, though, the poll numbers probably aren't that artificially inflated.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 26, 2013, 22:06
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Ron on October 27, 2013, 01:37
There are people here that have an interest in inflating the ratings.

True but the same could be said for any of the poll choices. People have favorites, companies they want to see at the top, etc. On average, though, the poll numbers probably aren't that artificially inflated.
Look around this site and you'll see very few people making anywhere near the average and if there are some doing better than the average almost no one is saying so.  Most people reporting sales appear to be in the $25 or less per month category or are getting one sale of $10. 
There is also a thread started encouraging people to vote for self-hosted "Guys, we need to get in there in droves and report all our SYS sales in the MSG poll. Lets get noticed on the poll and see how many people will jump on board."   Best way to get noticed would be to inflate (or flat out lie about) your numbers to inflate the poll results.
By interest in inflating the poll results I meant a financial interest but clearly there is also an emotional interest and a desire to "get noticed".
I said that, and I reported my sales honestly. You are now insulting all my colleagues in the Symbiostock network and questioning their honesty. What kind of a messed up person must you be to say something completely unfounded and insulting like that? You just cant stand anything being successful outside that contributor ripping off company of yours. Its just another pathetic attempt of yours to make anything none getty look bad. Any shred of respect I had for you, because you seem to do well as a photographer, has now gone. What a Shill.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Uncle Pete on October 27, 2013, 05:39
You could claim that about EVERY site on the right. Any proof or are you just going to keep throwing out insults and accusations in hopes of making another senseless and obvious point, but directing it at one way of individual marketing?

The poll is a survey, it's representative of the people who voted. It's not scientific, it's for information. That information is relative.

Leo and the 95 sites are moving along and all you want to do is complain? I have an idea, why not find some other topic that you have an interest in, and that would actually effect you in some way, instead of slamming some people who are moving into a free market adventure.

Some people do have K-Tools or other sites, it says "Self-Hosted" it doesn't say Symbiostock!

ps 22.5 when I looked today.

There are people here that have an interest in inflating the ratings.

It's me. I make money gambling on the poll numbers.  ;)
I'd be willing to bet that the numbers are being skewed by a few people.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: cathyslife on October 27, 2013, 07:06
Look around this site and you'll see very few people making anywhere near the average and if there are some doing better than the average almost no one is saying so.  Most people reporting sales appear to be in the $25 or less per month category or are getting one sale of $10. 
There is also a thread started encouraging people to vote for self-hosted "Guys, we need to get in there in droves and report all our SYS sales in the MSG poll. Lets get noticed on the poll and see how many people will jump on board."   Best way to get noticed would be to inflate (or flat out lie about) your numbers to inflate the poll results.
By interest in inflating the poll results I meant a financial interest but clearly there is also an emotional interest and a desire to "get noticed".

And I guess you didnt read my post 75 where I said "I think a few are doing well because they did well already and already had other sites up that now link to SY. The added SEO benefits help them for sure." The few that are doing well would skew the numbers and as you said, the others probably do fall into the "under $25" category. For now.

That category includes ANY self-hosted site and maybe others using Photoshelter or KTools are doing well, too.

There are people who are definitely encouraging people to jump on board SY. Those of us like myself who are not making a lot of money yet believe that the more people who jump on board, the more our images will be in front of buyers...same principle as the agencies. The whole project was started to make money on images...some it benefitted right away, some have to wait. Yeah, people are going to be talking it up...
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: bunhill on October 27, 2013, 07:13
It depends what people report. I only sell RM at Alamy.
However, if I post my Alamy stats, it punts me into iS indie, so now I've stopped posting Alamy figures.

I have been a bit rubbish about contributing to the stats here. I added to the September stats and that included Alamy RM. Where are you seeing that it is classing us as independent if we do that ? Also - I already cannot remember if I included my August GI via iStock income which was paid in September. Or whether I included it all. It does not look like I did. That's a another thing about the stats - the whole business of when we include income from partner sites.

I find it very difficult to make any sense of the stats. I haven't got a clue what the numbers mean. Can anyone explain or point me to a link ? I look at it and wonder whether people are reporting 10s or 1000s. Shutterstock is at the top with an earnings rating of 76.4. iStock exclusive is below that with an earnings rating of 298.3. How does that work ? Is there a chart which I am missing which compares actual income in $. I enter $ but cannot find the $ chart. That would be a good graph to see - actual money. I would love to know what the mean average income is at the different sites.

Anyhow - even not understanding it, I definitely think there is a case for classing everyone as independent. Few of us are employees and many iS exclusives are also with Getty independent of iS as are many people who are completely independent.

Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: ShadySue on October 27, 2013, 07:29
It depends what people report. I only sell RM at Alamy.
However, if I post my Alamy stats, it punts me into iS indie, so now I've stopped posting Alamy figures.
... I added to the September stats and that included Alamy RM. Where are you seeing that it is classing us as independent if we do that ?
Someone asked about it a few months back and Leaf confirmed that the system would do that.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Millionstock.com on October 27, 2013, 08:07
The 3th place reflects more or less my situation  :)
My SYS site is growing during the last weeks and therefore I've stopped to upload to all sites exept my SYS site.
I prefer to sell 1 pic at 5 USD and receive all the money (total revenue=5 USD) instead of selling 10 pics at 1 USD and receive more or less 0,33 USD each (total revenue=3,3 USD); I find the first way more motivating and respectfull of my creativity.
My motivation to stay in the Microstock market has increased with the launch of m self-hosted site :-)
In the following weeks I want to concentrate my efforts in attracting more buyers to my site....
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: marthamarks on October 27, 2013, 09:06
Leo and the 95 sites are moving along and all you want to do is complain?

Just as a clarification, Uncle Pete: It's now Leo and the 126 sites, with over 150,000 images.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: EmberMike on October 27, 2013, 09:18
Look around this site and you'll see very few people making anywhere near the average and if there are some doing better than the average almost no one is saying so.  Most people reporting sales appear to be in the $25 or less per month category or are getting one sale of $10. 
There is also a thread started encouraging people to vote for self-hosted "Guys, we need to get in there in droves and report all our SYS sales in the MSG poll. Lets get noticed on the poll and see how many people will jump on board."   Best way to get noticed would be to inflate (or flat out lie about) your numbers to inflate the poll results.
By interest in inflating the poll results I meant a financial interest but clearly there is also an emotional interest and a desire to "get noticed".

I can also look around this site and see very few people reporting the kind of earnings that support the istock exclusive poll result. Should I then assume that many exclusives are liars?

Just because you don't see the evidence you want to see around here doesn't mean anything. People are more secretive about earnings these days than ever before.

Do the poll results get gamed a bit? I'm sure. But on the whole, I doubt a few dishonest people can skew the results so dramatically one way or the other.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: ShadySue on October 27, 2013, 09:21
I can also look around this site and see very few people reporting the kind of earnings that support the istock exclusive poll result. Should I then assume that many exclusives are liars?
Something I've often noticed too.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: luissantos84 on October 27, 2013, 09:29
maybe they aren't very active here for some reason, perhaps they go to the polls only
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: ShadySue on October 27, 2013, 09:35
maybe they aren't very active here for some reason, perhaps they go to the polls only
Quite.
So why would they do that?
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: luissantos84 on October 27, 2013, 09:48
maybe they aren't very active here for some reason, perhaps they go to the polls only
Quite.
So why would they do that?

to keep their income more stable even if anonymous here but yep posting at the polls will show otherwise, maybe they just don't want to talk with us, with me in particularly because I am paranoid ;D
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: bunhill on October 27, 2013, 10:18
I can also look around this site and see very few people reporting the kind of earnings that support the istock exclusive poll result.

What kind of earnings support that result. How much money ? How many $ ?

I find it very hard to guess what people are earning. I find it impossible to know whether we are comparing like with like when people talk about increases and decreases in sales.

At the height of the boom I was making about $1 per image per month. Currently I am averaging about  0.65c per image per month I think. That includes Alamy. Increasing the number of images I have at Alamy has marginally increased my income but has also reduced my per image income.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: heywoody on October 27, 2013, 10:41
Look around this site and you'll see very few people making anywhere near the average and if there are some doing better than the average almost no one is saying so.  Most people reporting sales appear to be in the $25 or less per month category or are getting one sale of $10. 
There is also a thread started encouraging people to vote for self-hosted "Guys, we need to get in there in droves and report all our SYS sales in the MSG poll. Lets get noticed on the poll and see how many people will jump on board."   Best way to get noticed would be to inflate (or flat out lie about) your numbers to inflate the poll results.
By interest in inflating the poll results I meant a financial interest but clearly there is also an emotional interest and a desire to "get noticed".

I can also look around this site and see very few people reporting the kind of earnings that support the istock exclusive poll result. Should I then assume that many exclusives are liars?

Just because you don't see the evidence you want to see around here doesn't mean anything. People are more secretive about earnings these days than ever before.

Do the poll results get gamed a bit? I'm sure. But on the whole, I doubt a few dishonest people can skew the results so dramatically one way or the other.

IS exclusive / self-hosted don't represent the normal cross-section (reasoning contained in earlier posts) of pollsters so numbers will be inflated without anyone actually telling porkies. Based on a very small sample (just Ron) it's probably in the region of 10 for self-hosted, and, based on the fact that big hitters do seem to recover their earnings after dropping the crown, probably in the region of 100 for for exclusives.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: tickstock on October 27, 2013, 17:00
.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: dianajo on October 27, 2013, 21:13
Re: Hosting costs and not having large portfolios.

I have had a web hosting account for years and always have at least ONE web site going. If you're hosting with Bluehost, the fees (if you pre-pay) are ridiculously low and I can host multiple sites on the one account. Essentially, setting up a SYS site cost me nothing but time and the add-on I *chose* to purchase. 5 sales of large files will more than cover my start up costs. I chose to use stock royalties to fund it.

Maybe I'll make nothing for a year and one day, one buyer will find me and start using my imagery and licensing directly...instead of through the agencies I currently license through (an ever shrinking number!).  I don't have a large portfolio, my site isn't perfect and there are things I need to adjust...but it is there...it is in less than 2 weeks starting to get traffic and individual images are showing up in searches (judging from my analytics).

I can offer discounts, market directly to buyers and actually *know* where some of my images end up. That is worth it to me. Even better, I can develop relationships with my buyers (assuming they come) and offer better service than I would be able to do through any of the agencies.

And...it was a lot cheaper than the SmugMug account I had for a year that was just a drain on my bank book.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: marthamarks on October 27, 2013, 22:54
Very well said, dianajo.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Gannet77 on October 28, 2013, 05:32
It depends what people report. I only sell RM at Alamy.
However, if I post my Alamy stats, it punts me into iS indie, so now I've stopped posting Alamy figures.
... I added to the September stats and that included Alamy RM. Where are you seeing that it is classing us as independent if we do that ?
Someone asked about it a few months back and Leaf confirmed that the system would do that.

Leaf, is that still the case?

When I report stats in the poll, I also add Alamy RM, and video sales on SS, Pond5 and ClipCanvas (not that I get many, but it does happen...) so presumably I'd get counted as an Indie too, some of the time anyway.

Would it be possible to change this so we can register ourselves as iStock Exclusives somehow in the poll?

Back to topic though - I too think it would be useful if you could separate out Symbiostock and "other self-hosted".
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: leaf on October 28, 2013, 06:09
It depends what people report. I only sell RM at Alamy.
However, if I post my Alamy stats, it punts me into iS indie, so now I've stopped posting Alamy figures.
... I added to the September stats and that included Alamy RM. Where are you seeing that it is classing us as independent if we do that ?
Someone asked about it a few months back and Leaf confirmed that the system would do that.

Leaf, is that still the case?

When I report stats in the poll, I also add Alamy RM, and video sales on SS, Pond5 and ClipCanvas (not that I get many, but it does happen...) so presumably I'd get counted as an Indie too, some of the time anyway.

Would it be possible to change this so we can register ourselves as iStock Exclusives somehow in the poll?

Back to topic though - I too think it would be useful if you could separate out Symbiostock and "other self-hosted".

Yeah, that is still how it works.  It only counts you as exclusive to iStock if that is the only site you vote on.  It gets rather confusing with all the variations as some people are exclusive with just video or just illustration.  There isn't a different poll for the various media types so most people just lump everything together which makes it tough if you are exclusive for one thing somewhere.  And what about the people who have a few (or a lot) of exclusive images on Dreamstime or Fotolia?  If I made 20 different polls nobody would answer them so I tried to keep it as simple as possible.  It isn't perfect and is simply meant to provide a general guide as to which sites are producing and which aren't.  I feel it does that quite well.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: Gannet77 on October 28, 2013, 06:23
OK, thanks.  I'll just report iStock in future then.
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: borg on October 28, 2013, 15:26
I have had a Smugmug account for almost a year...
My the best photos were uploaded there, but without any sale, none...
I've spent more than 200 € on google ads for nothing...

So maybe "self hosted" is too wide term in this case...
Title: Re: Self-Hosted at 14.6 - top 5
Post by: djpadavona on October 29, 2013, 09:36
There are people here that have an interest in inflating the ratings.

It's me. I make money gambling on the poll numbers.  ;)

I just looked at the Vegas line for this week's match up:

Self-Hosted (-8) vs. 123RF

I'm giving the points. Stone Cold Lock of the Week imo.   :P