Subs - just checking. There was a poll like this last year January also. (which I can't find)

Poll expires in 20 days, results will show then. Aprox. Feb 2nd.

Well, with 45 contributors having voted so far, I guess that answers your question Race!

Over 50% of contributors are on 36c or more per sub download and less than 16% are on the minimum 25c (and even those should move upwards fairly quickly if they uploaded a few saleable images).

That basically proves that it is against the interests of over 84% of all independent contributors to support low paying agencies like Thinkstock.

What does it matter? All microstock agenciesare low paying.

Quote from: gostwyck on January 14, 2011, 07:14

Well, with 45 contributors having voted so far, I guess that answers your question Race!

Over 50% of contributors are on 36c or more per sub download and less than 16% are on the minimum 25c (and even those should move upwards fairly quickly if they uploaded a few saleable images).

That basically proves that it is against the interests of over 84% of all independent contributors to support low paying agencies like Thinkstock.

What does it matter? All microstock agenciesare low paying.

If you sell in volume it makes a big difference.

Quote from: lisafx on January 14, 2011, 09:37

Quote from: molka on January 14, 2011, 07:39

Quote from: gostwyck on January 14, 2011, 07:14

Well, with 45 contributors having voted so far, I guess that answers your question Race!

Over 50% of contributors are on 36c or more per sub download and less than 16% are on the minimum 25c (and even those should move upwards fairly quickly if they uploaded a few saleable images).

That basically proves that it is against the interests of over 84% of all independent contributors to support low paying agencies like Thinkstock.

What does it matter? All microstock agenciesare low paying.

If you sell in volume it makes a big difference.

You have to sell in volume because they are low paying.

Bravo.  You have perfectly described the entire concept behind microstock

Quote from: lisafx on January 14, 2011, 10:44

Quote from: molka on January 14, 2011, 09:45

Quote from: lisafx on January 14, 2011, 09:37

Quote from: molka on January 14, 2011, 07:39

Quote from: gostwyck on January 14, 2011, 07:14

Well, with 45 contributors having voted so far, I guess that answers your question Race!

Over 50% of contributors are on 36c or more per sub download and less than 16% are on the minimum 25c (and even those should move upwards fairly quickly if they uploaded a few saleable images).

That basically proves that it is against the interests of over 84% of all independent contributors to support low paying agencies like Thinkstock.

What does it matter? All microstock agenciesare low paying.

If you sell in volume it makes a big difference.

You have to sell in volume because they are low paying.

Bravo.  You have perfectly described the entire concept behind microstock

The question reamining then is how come ppl using just a ounce of common sense didn't refuse that crap offer? It's hard to beleive ppl are that stupid and shoprtsighted, but looks to be that way. It's just sad : (

Here we go. 

infantilism kicks in: 'opinion I don't like' = 'troll.' Grow up!  : )

Quote from: disorderly on January 14, 2011, 12:01

Please, Cathy, don't feed the troll.  Ignore him; it's all he deserves.

I'm guilty too.  Should have just left his irrational rantings to go unanswered.  Apologies. 

39 of us have him on ignore.  Why not make it 40

That "show" button has got me a few times.  Would be nice if it wasn't there and we didn't see quotes from ignored people but I suppose that can't be helped.

... and looky-look what it got you with istock and microstock in general 

...A fairly decent chunk of money, a large portfolio, improved skill in my field, and some financial stability. Yeah, that stuff sucks. 

Well, with 45 contributors having voted so far, I guess that answers your question Race!

Over 50% of contributors are on 36c or more per sub download and less than 16% are on the minimum 25c (and even those should move upwards fairly quickly if they uploaded a few saleable images).

That basically proves that it is against the interests of over 84% of all independent contributors to support low paying agencies like Thinkstock.

It wasn't about ThinkStock, I don't know why everything turns into a Getty bashing thread.

Last year the conclusion was that the upper 5% of all microstock shooters, are represented here.

(and I'm never going to be one of them, because it takes hard work, dedication, models, understanding and more than snapping some sappy pictures.)

Edit: now that I read the rest of the thread, it looks like I bring out the best. LOL really I had no intention of baiting molka into an appearance.

Honest it was just the same question I asked last year. In fact if I did a survey, maybe I should find one of those free survey sites? I'd ask four questions that aren't as relevant as what Leaf does on the good survey. Maybe five? Every time they answer what I wonder and also point out that the top people for uploads, money and microstock in general, come here to chat. If someone new is looking for good information, this is the place.

How did last year's results compare with this year's?

Quote from: molka on January 14, 2011, 18:24

Looks like truth hurts again. But you people sure are good at ignoring things! Great skill, it's called ignorance... and looky-look what it got you with istock and microstock in general  

Did you notice you called people stupid? Not quite an invitation for discussion.

I don't feel bad to sell my shot of plain unpainted cement wall for 0.33 a pop. I don't feel like selling it for $200 would be appropriate.

If your stuff is exceptional enough, it will still sell for $200 a pop or more, so don't whine here.

No that's exceptional. I love it. An unpainted wall. Snowman in blizzard at North Pole? Watch as the copy cats duplicate that and try to cash in on a best seller.

But to continue the thread, what's left of it. I found the new graphics interesting at SS. This is a Christmas chart, One year, January to January 2011 and No El. (get it?)

The amounts don't matter, what does is one persons sales by the months. Maybe not interesting? But I thought it was.



This seems to be a question that comes up every year in January and July. If my sales are any indication, and I don't know if they are, here's the trend for Subs on SS.