Author Topic: please tell me this makes sense! (Read 28639 times)

derek · « **on:** March 22, 2017, 14:16 »

I simply have to share this just to see if anybody have experienced the same. To me it seems very very odd indeed.

Last week. thursday. $. 43.02
friday. 43. 93
Monday 44.34
Tuesday. 43.77

It just seems very funny to me. Is it some sort of a machine haha! determing how much we are going to earn?

Photobomb · « **Reply #1 on:** March 22, 2017, 14:29 »

There was a time I would have laughed off SS capping sales but not so much anymore.

dpimborough · « **Reply #2 on:** March 22, 2017, 14:58 »

Oh they cap them alright

derek · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2017, 15:02 »

pugh! I just find it incredible but why? what would they gain? I cant work it out.

Stockmaan · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2017, 15:05 »

Quote from: derek on March 22, 2017, 14:16

I simply have to share this just to see if anybody have experienced the same. To me it seems very very odd indeed.

Last week. thursday. $. 43.02
friday. 43. 93
Monday 44.34
Tuesday. 43.77

It just seems very funny to me. Is it some sort of a machine haha! determing how much we are going to earn?

Here similar but a little different:

thursday 5-10
friday 60-70
monday 5-10
tuesday 60-70

Yesterday 70
Today 10

Weird!!! Coincidence??

noodle · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2017, 15:25 »

I do believe in the 'cap sales theory'
I guess with such an insanely huge library, by capping it will a/ distribute sales to more contributers and b/ make sure that the image library gets churned for searches, so that a wider variety of images have a chance to sell

We will never be privy to any micros way of conducting business, but there are too many contributers who see patterns like this for it to be merely coincidence

mantered · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2017, 15:28 »

patterns or not ??
I got this "train" of duplicates from time to time :|

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2017, 15:37 »

How do they chose where to cap? Why would they cap someone at 20 dls and someone else at 250 dls?

Mrblues101 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2017, 15:49 »

Earning Cap theory?

dpimborough · « **Reply #9 on:** March 22, 2017, 17:01 »

Quote from: derek on March 22, 2017, 15:02

pugh! I just find it incredible but why? what would they gain? I cant work it out.

Why? Think about it if they had a boat load of people with small ports who earned nothing then those people would be disinclined to submit further images. The library would not grow.

The big boys like Africa Studio Wavebreakmedia et al have to be kept happy or they'd stop uploading and you bet your bottom dollar that's where the cash is made.

The top 100 (who make up round 20% of the 135million images in the library) probably get preferential search presentations and dedicated account managers to push their stuff on customers.

The real losers would be those on higher tiers (less profit for the agency) who are in the top 10% of contributors by volume/quantity of which there are around 14,000 (portfolios of 1,000 images and above).

Their earnings would be sacrificed to keep the newbies happy (newbies are cheap at lower tiers 25 cents etc).

And of course the big contributors are seen as the golden geese so no one touches their earnings otherwise why do they continue to pump stuff by the tens of thousand in to SS? I wouldn't unless I was guaranteed a return would you? Think about Yuri Arcurs getting all kind of schmoozing from istock/getty.

Big contributors never hit the "wall"

Newbies are always happily shouting how their month is a BME likewise they never hit the wall because they are being fed from the teat.

The others however (10%) do hit the wall and see earnings decline no matter what they throw at SS.

"That's how Dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty good so far," (Tony Stark)

And that's how coldly logical it is

dpimborough · « **Reply #10 on:** March 22, 2017, 17:04 »

Quote from: mantered on March 22, 2017, 15:28

patterns or not ??
I got this "train" of duplicates from time to time :|

I have the same type of problem I track it day by day month by month year by year and this wretched pattern is becoming more and more "normal"

Monthly payouts are within spit of my estimates I draw up, and each month is within $20 to $30 of the previous months it been flat bearing in mind it doesn't matter if I 've added volume or hardly any

Minsc · « **Reply #11 on:** March 22, 2017, 17:33 »

There is no cap that I know of. My earnings has fluctuated wildly in the last few weeks. I think it's more of a coincidence than anything else.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 22, 2017, 18:18 »

Quote from: Minsc on March 22, 2017, 17:33

There is no cap that I know of. My earnings has fluctuated wildly in the last few weeks. I think it's more of a coincidence than anything else.

Normally I'd agree but with these posts beginning to wonder you'd need a lot more data to be sure though. I'm a sceptic because I think "hiding" stuff from buyers seems a very risky strategy.

Photobomb · « **Reply #13 on:** March 22, 2017, 18:26 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 22, 2017, 18:18

Quote from: Minsc on March 22, 2017, 17:33
There is no cap that I know of. My earnings has fluctuated wildly in the last few weeks. I think it's more of a coincidence than anything else.
Normally I'd agree but with these posts beginning to wonder you'd need a lot more data to be sure though. I'm a sceptic because I think "hiding" stuff from buyers seems a very risky strategy.

100+ million images and you don't think there are images close enough to any of yours that a buyer will not buy something?

Copidosoma · « **Reply #14 on:** March 22, 2017, 22:00 »

Quote from: Sammy the Cat on March 22, 2017, 17:01

Quote from: derek on March 22, 2017, 15:02
pugh! I just find it incredible but why? what would they gain? I cant work it out.

Why? Think about it if they had a boat load of people with small ports who earned nothing then those people would be disinclined to submit further images. The library would not grow.

The big boys like Africa Studio Wavebreakmedia et al have to be kept happy or they'd stop uploading and you bet your bottom dollar that's where the cash is made.

The top 100 (who make up round 20% of the 135million images in the library) probably get preferential search presentations and dedicated account managers to push their stuff on customers.

The real losers would be those on higher tiers (less profit for the agency) who are in the top 10% of contributors by volume/quantity of which there are around 14,000 (portfolios of 1,000 images and above).

Their earnings would be sacrificed to keep the newbies happy (newbies are cheap at lower tiers 25 cents etc).

And of course the big contributors are seen as the golden geese so no one touches their earnings otherwise why do they continue to pump stuff by the tens of thousand in to SS? I wouldn't unless I was guaranteed a return would you? Think about Yuri Arcurs getting all kind of schmoozing from istock/getty.

Big contributors never hit the "wall"

Newbies are always happily shouting how their month is a BME likewise they never hit the wall because they are being fed from the teat.

The others however (10%) do hit the wall and see earnings decline no matter what they throw at SS.

"That's how Dad did it, that's how America does it, and it's worked out pretty good so far," (Tony Stark)

And that's how coldly logical it is

How are the big contributors going to be kept happy if there is a cap? Or do you propose a double conspiracy that the cap is only for contributors in the middle?

dpimborough · « **Reply #15 on:** March 23, 2017, 00:30 »

Just read what I said

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #16 on:** March 23, 2017, 01:02 »

How is it possible to have "big contributors" if their sales are capped while they are "middling contributors"? And how did mid-size contributors get their if they were capped when they were small?
Chance is a funny thing, it repeatedly throws up what seem to be patterns but aren't really, also a portfolio of a certain size and popularity will have sales that fall within a certain range on certain days, so it's not surprising if the range is, say, from 15 to 45 that a few days will turn up with 30 sales in a row. So I suspect that all people are seeing is random variation within a fairly narrow range.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #17 on:** March 23, 2017, 01:14 »

Quote from: PhotoBomb on March 22, 2017, 18:26

Quote from: Pauws99 on March 22, 2017, 18:18
Quote from: Minsc on March 22, 2017, 17:33
There is no cap that I know of. My earnings has fluctuated wildly in the last few weeks. I think it's more of a coincidence than anything else.
Normally I'd agree but with these posts beginning to wonder you'd need a lot more data to be sure though. I'm a sceptic because I think "hiding" stuff from buyers seems a very risky strategy.

100+ million images and you don't think there are images close enough to any of yours that a buyer will not buy something?

Not mine particularly but buyers might wonder why images keep appearing and dissapearing.

derek · « **Reply #18 on:** March 23, 2017, 01:33 »

So lets just say for a second they cap the sales. In reallity that means that files are never allowed to earn its full potential and that means that we can all sit here uploading until grey and green and it wont matter the slightest but for pennies and cents. To me that seems like bad business?

OTOH I know of examples where earnings have been around $.60 four days in a row and then the next three days down to around $.15 per day.

Well I hope there is no cap because if there is one might just as well leave the portfolio as it is since any uploading would just be a waste of time.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #19 on:** March 23, 2017, 01:35 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 23, 2017, 01:02

How is it possible to have "big contributors" if their sales are capped while they are "middling contributors"? And how did mid-size contributors get their if they were capped when they were small?
Chance is a funny thing, it repeatedly throws up what seem to be patterns but aren't really, also a portfolio of a certain size and popularity will have sales that fall within a certain range on certain days, so it's not surprising if the range is, say, from 15 to 45 that a few days will turn up with 30 sales in a row. So I suspect that all people are seeing is random variation within a fairly narrow range.

I do tend to agree though the results posted to seem statistically quite improbable...thats not to say impossible though. In the end without a much bigger sample I guess the debate will continue.

dpimborough · « **Reply #20 on:** March 23, 2017, 04:02 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 23, 2017, 01:02

How is it possible to have "big contributors" if their sales are capped while they are "middling contributors"? And how did mid-size contributors get their if they were capped when they were small?
Chance is a funny thing, it repeatedly throws up what seem to be patterns but aren't really, also a portfolio of a certain size and popularity will have sales that fall within a certain range on certain days, so it's not surprising if the range is, say, from 15 to 45 that a few days will turn up with 30 sales in a row. So I suspect that all people are seeing is random variation within a fairly narrow range.

Because my Dear Watson the big contributors like Africa Studio and Yuri Arcurs and others are companies or if you like image factories.

They employ photographers and keyworders and set designers. They churn out thousands of images a week.

The ones with portfolios of 1,000 to 7,000 images are usually one man bands and can not hope to compete on volume QED they are the sacrificial lambs in all of this.

Do you think an image factory is going set up and continue in business having invested capital and salaries and recruitment if they were not 100% certain of returns? Of course they get consulted and an inside track on special deals.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #21 on:** March 23, 2017, 04:25 »

Isn't it much more likely a product of the "wall". Depending on your quality and upload rate at some point your earnings stagnate at a more or less steady level. You can only increase them by improving quality or upload rate and they will only drop if get worse or upload less. As your portfolio size grows your rate of increase decreases if you have a steady upload amount until it hovers around zero, looking very much like a "cap".

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #22 on:** March 23, 2017, 04:27 »

I remember when Yuri hit the "wall". He was posting a lot about it on the SS forum, how dl number just wouldn't increase. I think was somewhere less than 1000 (500?) Dls/ day for him. That was years ago, before anyone else was talking about a cap.

derek · « **Reply #23 on:** March 23, 2017, 04:38 »

Talking about Yuri. For those here that remember he did constantly warn not just us but the agencies that stuff like this would happen such as favourized searches and caps on incomes and cut off periods.
He did personally know a couple of the bigger agency bosses so he must have known something.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #24 on:** March 23, 2017, 04:45 »

It gets confusing as there is talk of a cap but also rapidly declining sales....so is it a smaller cap? Also to bear in mind the larger your sales volume the more likely it is to tend to a steady state. If you have relatively low sales a big SoD can have a dramatic effect.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: please tell me this makes sense! (Read 28639 times)

derek

Photobomb

dpimborough

derek

Stockmaan

noodle

mantered

Justanotherphotographer

Mrblues101

dpimborough

dpimborough

Minsc

Pauws99

Photobomb

Copidosoma

dpimborough

BaldricksTrousers

Pauws99

derek

Pauws99

dpimborough

Justanotherphotographer

Justanotherphotographer

derek

Pauws99

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors