pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

What do you get per Sub Download on SS

25 cents
22 (17.5%)
33 cents
35 (27.8%)
36 cents
33 (26.2%)
38 cents
36 (28.6%)

Total Members Voted: 110

Voting closed: February 02, 2011, 18:03

Author Topic: How Much do you get per Subscription Download on SS as of Jan. 1st 2011?  (Read 9507 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

RacePhoto

« on: January 13, 2011, 18:03 »
0
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.

« Last Edit: January 14, 2011, 03:49 by RacePhoto »


« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2011, 07:14 »
0
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.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2011, 07:39 »
0
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.

« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2011, 09:09 »
0
Shutterstock payments :

Subscription : 0.33 cent
OD : 1.88 / 2.88

Port size : 480 (or so, not counting identical vector - raster)
Took me about 10 months to reach 0.33 level but I'm in no way special.

And then, there are contributors like L. Davila. A very, very talented and successful illustrator.
His first month at SS (not even a full month), 1 page port, (20 - 25 illustrations), - over 800 downloads. (Wow!)
Next month - December - he was already on 0.33 level.
It took him about 5 weeks to reach it.
But I have to admit, he's exceptional.
Not many can compare to his performance.

lisafx

« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2011, 09:37 »
0
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.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2011, 09:45 »
0
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.

lisafx

« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2011, 10:44 »
0
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 :)

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2011, 11:43 »
0
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 : (

« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2011, 11:57 »
0
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.  ::)

« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2011, 12:01 »
0
Here we go.  ::)

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

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2011, 12:04 »
0
infantilism kicks in: 'opinion I don't like' = 'troll.' Grow up!  : )

lisafx

« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2011, 12:11 »
0


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. 

« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2011, 15:07 »
0


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 :)

lisafx

« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2011, 15:26 »
0
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 :)

I am already one of those 39.  He was posting so much my curiosity got the better of me and I looked.  Now I'm kicking myself because it was a total waste of time.  As usual he had nothing of value to offer.   ::)

« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2011, 15:53 »
0
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.

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2011, 18:24 »
0
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  ;)

« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2011, 18:36 »
0
... 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.  ;D


lisafx

« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2011, 18:41 »
0
...A fairly decent chunk of money, a large portfolio, improved skill in my field, and some financial stability. Yeah, that stuff sucks.  ;D

Bummer you have wasted all that time... ;)

RacePhoto

« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2011, 01:31 »
0
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. :D

(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.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2011, 01:44 by RacePhoto »

molka

    This user is banned.
« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2011, 08:40 »
0
... 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.  ;D

so what's the several hundred pages of pissed of whining on istock and here is all about then? it's suddenly "woo-yay again"? :) my god you people are inconsistent infantile kids...

« Reply #20 on: January 15, 2011, 08:45 »
0
How did last year's results compare with this year's?

« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2011, 10:32 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2011, 10:35 by Danicek »

RacePhoto

« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2011, 00:45 »
0
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? :D 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.

RacePhoto

« Reply #23 on: February 03, 2011, 01:17 »
0
Results are locked and 55%/39 of the people on who answered MSG have sold over $3000 on SS. Which is once again very impressive.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
27 Replies
8543 Views
Last post September 11, 2010, 14:33
by lisafx
25 Replies
8672 Views
Last post December 29, 2010, 15:12
by microstockphoto.co.uk
iStock Watch 2011

Started by RacePhoto « 1 2 3 4  All » iStockPhoto.com

75 Replies
25950 Views
Last post January 12, 2011, 02:23
by RacePhoto
32 Replies
10559 Views
Last post January 20, 2011, 01:33
by qwerty
19 Replies
4373 Views
Last post June 01, 2013, 13:31
by Dan

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors