MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

Earnings per image per month on Shutterstock

< $0.10
10 (11.6%)
$0.20
20 (23.3%)
$0.30
15 (17.4%)
$0.40
6 (7%)
$0.50
10 (11.6%)
$0.60
3 (3.5%)
$0.70
3 (3.5%)
$0.80
2 (2.3%)
$0.90
3 (3.5%)
$1.00+
11 (12.8%)
$2.00+
3 (3.5%)

Total Members Voted: 77

Author Topic: RPI per month  (Read 12653 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Microbius

« Reply #25 on: October 31, 2012, 15:46 »
0
(clipped parts)

Unrelated: there are also people on this thread still bringing up the old arguments about how you can delete images in your portfolio to bring up your RPI. Again, no professional contributor would ever calculate RPI in a way where this would make a difference. It is calculated using total images produced, regardless of whether they are then rejected or even deleted as non sellers.

So you mean I need to calculate based on submitted images, not active images?

Does anyone else except you do that? Because lets say I sent in 1000 images and 500 got accepted. You are saying my RPI is based on 1000 not the 500 active and selling? Or in that case, I have 500 images that will always be averaged in as a zero?

I find that kind of strange. Where calculating based on how many images working and how many images are licensed for X dollars, seems the norm?

In other words, I believe the general way of figuring it is -   RPI=Sales/Number Of Images  that's simple enough.

You really calculate based on every photo you ever submitted, on every site? Amazing!
Not sure how it can still seem the norm to you when the misapprehension is corrected by numerous people whenever you make the same point.
The reason to do it this way is to give an accurate assessment of whether you are spending your time productively. If you are producing images that are not selling or being rejected you need to see that reflected in the sum. Otherwise it is just pretty numbers.


« Reply #26 on: October 31, 2012, 15:57 »
0
The main value of this calculation is to compare the sites to each other. If you are using it in this way it is extremely valuable because it becomes real easy to see which sites are performing best for your portfolio. I agree that it has almost no value in comparing artists, there is just too much difference from one port to the next.

« Reply #27 on: October 31, 2012, 16:03 »
0
It's a pointless question if someone is figuring out the pro and cons of dropping the crown.  The op needs to figure out what he / she might lose by being non-exclusive on IS and then maybe some detail on how RPI per accepted image compares between IS and SS for non exclusives generally. The fact that Johnny makes $1 and Fred makes 10c on SS is not useful info.

RacePhoto

« Reply #28 on: November 01, 2012, 23:42 »
0
(clipped parts)

Unrelated: there are also people on this thread still bringing up the old arguments about how you can delete images in your portfolio to bring up your RPI. Again, no professional contributor would ever calculate RPI in a way where this would make a difference. It is calculated using total images produced, regardless of whether they are then rejected or even deleted as non sellers.

So you mean I need to calculate based on submitted images, not active images?

Does anyone else except you do that? Because lets say I sent in 1000 images and 500 got accepted. You are saying my RPI is based on 1000 not the 500 active and selling? Or in that case, I have 500 images that will always be averaged in as a zero?

I find that kind of strange. Where calculating based on how many images working and how many images are licensed for X dollars, seems the norm?

In other words, I believe the general way of figuring it is -   RPI=Sales/Number Of Images  that's simple enough.

You really calculate based on every photo you ever submitted, on every site? Amazing!
Not sure how it can still seem the norm to you when the misapprehension is corrected by numerous people whenever you make the same point.
The reason to do it this way is to give an accurate assessment of whether you are spending your time productively. If you are producing images that are not selling or being rejected you need to see that reflected in the sum. Otherwise it is just pretty numbers.

Yup we agree. I don't think most people if anyone else, uses all images, rejects and accepted to calculate this.

No problem, you're being more honest with yourself.

I prefer to calculate RPI based on working images, not failures. Also if I had more agencies like I once did, I could compare them to each other, except they don't accept the same images and different types sell at different places.

To each their own.

Hey, maybe we need a poll or thread or MSG standards committee to determine what is RPI and how to calculate it? LOL

rubyroo

« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2012, 05:02 »
0
Well which should we do for the poll?  I already voted based on my whole port but, given the above, I went back and re-calculated on only actively selling images, and obviously the result was very different.

So, should the poll be re-run with this form of calculation stated as required?  It'll be a pretty useless result if everyone's calculating it differently. 
« Last Edit: November 02, 2012, 05:05 by rubyroo »

mattdixon

« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2012, 06:38 »
0
For the RPI to make sense it should be calculated using the total of images on line, irrespective of whether they are bestsellers or duds. It's useful for knowing how much work you need to do to grow or maintain your income. Or in my case whether to ditch a library altogether because of diminishing returns.

rubyroo

« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2012, 06:49 »
0
OK thanks.  In that case I voted as you required, but it sounds as though some others didn't.  You might want to add the facility for people to alter their vote so that the results are returning the information you want.  I don't know how you add that option though.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2012, 06:54 by rubyroo »

« Reply #32 on: November 02, 2012, 06:52 »
+1

If I understand correctly the formula the OP wants us to use is RPI=(total $ made so far this year/images online)/month of the year

Someone with 2000 images online, making 1000 dollar per month has an RPI of 50 cent. Someone with 3000 images online making 3000 dollar per month has an RPI of 1 dollar. So if you have 7000 images online making 3500 a month its still only an RPI of 50 cent. I guess the dollar is not too low.

Then I must have miscalculated.  I calculate RPI by dividing the monthly income at a site, by how many images I have on that site during that month.  The way the OP suggest doesn't make sense to me.

I'm always amazed how most people have a "superficial" knowledge of elementary mathematics... Or that  often might be  characteristic of "artistic soul"... !  ;)
Lisa, leave it them in their "condition"... That was job of their teachers in elementary school... They were payed for that!
I think that is reason why World is in crisis, nobody knows anything, but they think they deserve excellent standard! And probably they are local patriots!
« Last Edit: November 02, 2012, 06:57 by borg »

rubyroo

« Reply #33 on: November 02, 2012, 07:29 »
0
Oh hang on.  I hadn't seen the OP's method of calculating.  I didn't do it that way at all.  The way I calculated was:

Monthly income divided by total images in port.

Do tell me if I'm wrong to do it that way.

« Reply #34 on: November 02, 2012, 08:31 »
0
That's how I did it, too.  I think the "correct" way to do it depends on what you want to know.  If your goal is to determine whether microstock is financially worthwhile relative to other activities then you probably should use total images, regardless of whether they get accepted - that will indicate return on total effort.  For a business that is what you will want to know.  If your goal is to see which agencies return the most per accepted image then do it only on those accepted.  That's what I do, because I want to know which agencies work the best for me and should be the focus of future efforts.  In my case for the past two years that agency is Shutterstock by a wide margin.  The two years before that it was  iStock.  My RPI for accepted images on SS has been nearly the same over the past 4 years, while iStock has dropped by more than half.  The numbers would be different but the trend the same if I used all images produced because acceptance rates are not that different between the agencies.

RacePhoto

« Reply #35 on: November 02, 2012, 12:04 »
+1
Oh hang on.  I hadn't seen the OP's method of calculating.  I didn't do it that way at all.  The way I calculated was:

Monthly income divided by total images in port.

Do tell me if I'm wrong to do it that way.

That's the way most people do it. Microbius was targeting me because I said "I can remove the non-sellers and my RPI will go way up." It also applies to images ready to go FREE on some sites. So people can remove images and will for any reason they want, and unless it's a best seller, it influences the RPI in a positive way.

Microbius was pointing out that the correct way for someone to evaluate the business and their profit as a whole ,would be include everything, accepted and rejected, to see the value of an image. He's right if someone looks at it from that viewpoint. In fact, it's a more honest way to see the real stats on how much an average image makes

Where it gets complicated, and why I personally choose to only use accepted images that are on the market, is this. I can shoot easily 1000 images a day at an event. I generally try to limit each upload batch to three best images of each driver or team. DO I figure the RPI including the 300 images that I threw away before I started sorting?  :D Or do I include the 400-500 that didn't make the cut for closer review? Or should I only count images that I actually crop and edit and upload? See where this is leading? Take 1000, upload 60 and statistically it's horrible! But when one of those 60 sells Editorial, I don't feel so bad about my I'm a statistical failure badge.

I prefer the simple answer, accepted images, and what do they earn a month. But honestly RPI is irrelevant except for personal use, or for comparing agencies. Because everyone has different shots and different portfolios, some have illustrations, some sell editorial, so anyone can choose their own way of calculation.

This all boils down to why some people say Alamy is terrible. They use RPI instead of bottom line. It can also be why some people don't like SS, they use RPI, not dollars in the bank = Bottom Line. Although SS kicks butt on IS for me anyway? I prefer to put gas in my car, buy equipment and eat lunch with dollars, not RPI's.  ::)

Microbius isn't wrong and I don't disagree with him, for someone evaluating how the Microstock business is doing for returns on investment. He's just doing it his own way. I do it mine. And I think if we checked most people use accepted images, not all images.

Poncke

« Reply #36 on: November 02, 2012, 13:45 »
0

If I understand correctly the formula the OP wants us to use is RPI=(total $ made so far this year/images online)/month of the year

Someone with 2000 images online, making 1000 dollar per month has an RPI of 50 cent. Someone with 3000 images online making 3000 dollar per month has an RPI of 1 dollar. So if you have 7000 images online making 3500 a month its still only an RPI of 50 cent. I guess the dollar is not too low.

Then I must have miscalculated.  I calculate RPI by dividing the monthly income at a site, by how many images I have on that site during that month.  The way the OP suggest doesn't make sense to me.

I'm always amazed how most people have a "superficial" knowledge of elementary mathematics... Or that  often might be  characteristic of "artistic soul"... !  ;)
Lisa, leave it them in their "condition"... That was job of their teachers in elementary school... They were payed for that!
I think that is reason why World is in crisis, nobody knows anything, but they think they deserve excellent standard! And probably they are local patriots!
All I did was explain what the OP posted. No need to come here and be a pr*ck just because I am clarifying something. Cheers.

« Reply #37 on: November 02, 2012, 16:45 »
0
(clipped parts)

Unrelated: there are also people on this thread still bringing up the old arguments about how you can delete images in your portfolio to bring up your RPI. Again, no professional contributor would ever calculate RPI in a way where this would make a difference. It is calculated using total images produced, regardless of whether they are then rejected or even deleted as non sellers.

So you mean I need to calculate based on submitted images, not active images?

Does anyone else except you do that? Because lets say I sent in 1000 images and 500 got accepted. You are saying my RPI is based on 1000 not the 500 active and selling? Or in that case, I have 500 images that will always be averaged in as a zero?

I find that kind of strange. Where calculating based on how many images working and how many images are licensed for X dollars, seems the norm?

In other words, I believe the general way of figuring it is -   RPI=Sales/Number Of Images  that's simple enough.

You really calculate based on every photo you ever submitted, on every site? Amazing!
Not sure how it can still seem the norm to you when the misapprehension is corrected by numerous people whenever you make the same point.
The reason to do it this way is to give an accurate assessment of whether you are spending your time productively. If you are producing images that are not selling or being rejected you need to see that reflected in the sum. Otherwise it is just pretty numbers.

in the days of film maybe that had some validity, but now it doesnt make much sense -- you can easily take 100s of images and quickly weed them down to the technically correct ones; then select the ones to submit -- but with the subjectivity of reviewers what you think are the best may not be true, so it's easier to submit a larger number and let each agency pick the ones they like.  the resulting number of ACCEPTED images would be used for RPI (if you care)

another big factor is what & how you shoot -- since most of my images are travel, i may never get another chance to capture any particular day; so taking as many as possible makes sense.  if you're concentrating on a few niches, you dont need to, since you know you'll be revisiting.

however, this muddle on what the base number might be just points to the relative uselessness of RPI in the first place
« Last Edit: November 02, 2012, 16:59 by cascoly »

« Reply #38 on: November 02, 2012, 17:01 »
0

If I understand correctly the formula the OP wants us to use is RPI=(total $ made so far this year/images online)/month of the year

Someone with 2000 images online, making 1000 dollar per month has an RPI of 50 cent. Someone with 3000 images online making 3000 dollar per month has an RPI of 1 dollar. So if you have 7000 images online making 3500 a month its still only an RPI of 50 cent. I guess the dollar is not too low.


Then I must have miscalculated.  I calculate RPI by dividing the monthly income at a site, by how many images I have on that site during that month.  The way the OP suggest doesn't make sense to me.

I'm always amazed how most people have a "superficial" knowledge of elementary mathematics... Or that  often might be  characteristic of "artistic soul"... !  ;)
Lisa, leave it them in their "condition"... That was job of their teachers in elementary school... They were payed for that!
I think that is reason why World is in crisis, nobody knows anything, but they think they deserve excellent standard! And probably they are local patriots!
All I did was explain what the OP posted. No need to come here and be a pr*ck just because I am clarifying something. Cheers.

In fact, my post was not directed toward you, rather than general (for this kind of debate) ...As Lisa said "it doesn't make sense", I am sorry...
« Last Edit: November 02, 2012, 17:12 by borg »

Poncke

« Reply #39 on: November 02, 2012, 17:44 »
0

If I understand correctly the formula the OP wants us to use is RPI=(total $ made so far this year/images online)/month of the year

Someone with 2000 images online, making 1000 dollar per month has an RPI of 50 cent. Someone with 3000 images online making 3000 dollar per month has an RPI of 1 dollar. So if you have 7000 images online making 3500 a month its still only an RPI of 50 cent. I guess the dollar is not too low.


Then I must have miscalculated.  I calculate RPI by dividing the monthly income at a site, by how many images I have on that site during that month.  The way the OP suggest doesn't make sense to me.

I'm always amazed how most people have a "superficial" knowledge of elementary mathematics... Or that  often might be  characteristic of "artistic soul"... !  ;)
Lisa, leave it them in their "condition"... That was job of their teachers in elementary school... They were payed for that!
I think that is reason why World is in crisis, nobody knows anything, but they think they deserve excellent standard! And probably they are local patriots!
All I did was explain what the OP posted. No need to come here and be a pr*ck just because I am clarifying something. Cheers.

In fact, my post was not directed toward you, rather than general (for this kind of debate) ...As Lisa said "it doesn't make sense", I am sorry...
Well its quite confusing to speak in general but quote my calculations and make denigrating comments. So I took it you were talking about me, since you quoted me.

« Reply #40 on: November 03, 2012, 04:15 »
0

If I understand correctly the formula the OP wants us to use is RPI=(total $ made so far this year/images online)/month of the year

Someone with 2000 images online, making 1000 dollar per month has an RPI of 50 cent. Someone with 3000 images online making 3000 dollar per month has an RPI of 1 dollar. So if you have 7000 images online making 3500 a month its still only an RPI of 50 cent. I guess the dollar is not too low.


Then I must have miscalculated.  I calculate RPI by dividing the monthly income at a site, by how many images I have on that site during that month.  The way the OP suggest doesn't make sense to me.

I'm always amazed how most people have a "superficial" knowledge of elementary mathematics... Or that  often might be  characteristic of "artistic soul"... !  ;)
Lisa, leave it them in their "condition"... That was job of their teachers in elementary school... They were payed for that!
I think that is reason why World is in crisis, nobody knows anything, but they think they deserve excellent standard! And probably they are local patriots!
All I did was explain what the OP posted. No need to come here and be a pr*ck just because I am clarifying something. Cheers.

In fact, my post was not directed toward you, rather than general (for this kind of debate) ...As Lisa said "it doesn't make sense", I am sorry...
Well its quite confusing to speak in general but quote my calculations and make denigrating comments. So I took it you were talking about me, since you quoted me.

Yes it' looks like, but my quote was on Lisa's post ( and yours were in it)...
Lisa has patience to explain everything, but sometimes it seems that some of us only want to provoke good informations, without asking, especially newbies...
So, apologize again...

Microbius

« Reply #41 on: November 03, 2012, 04:58 »
0
(clipped parts)
.....
.....
...
.....
Total submitted not every time you take a photo i.e. include rejections.

For one thing an image will not a be rejected by every site.

I submit the same content to every site and keep track of total uploads/ portfolio size using Canstock's stats just because it is easy to see the breakdown on their stats page.

It would make no sense to omit what they happen to reject when other sites have accepted the same images.

Not subtracting images you choose to delete from a site is another obvious one for me, for any calculation their being on a site and not selling is the same as them being deleted. The only reason to not take them into account would be to massage your ego with a high RPI, very nice if you are doing this for fun, but useless if you want to evaluate how your business is going and whether you are producing salable images.


« Reply #42 on: November 03, 2012, 14:18 »
0

Total submitted not every time you take a photo i.e. include rejections.

For one thing an image will not a be rejected by every site.

I submit the same content to every site and keep track of total uploads/ portfolio size using Canstock's stats just because it is easy to see the breakdown on their stats page.

It would make no sense to omit what they happen to reject when other sites have accepted the same images.


that's another problem with the whole RPI calc - if you have 100 images, submitted to 10 sites, do you calc rpi for each site? (logical since each site will have a different selection)



Quote

Not subtracting images you choose to delete from a site is another obvious one for me, for any calculation their being on a site and not selling is the same as them being deleted. The only reason to not take them into account would be to massage your ego with a high RPI, very nice if you are doing this for fun, but useless if you want to evaluate how your business is going and whether you are producing salable images.

whatever your RPI, it's useless in evaluating your business - since we've agreed any RPI calc will have problems, it doesntt give any picture of what's happening.  i can have an RPI of $1 by counting only acceptance or $.50 if i include rejections - but in BOTH cases my INCOME is exactly the same!  and income is all i really care about in tracking my business.

given the fickleness & subjectivity of reviewers, any decisions will have large margins of error if you use RPI to predict

« Reply #43 on: November 03, 2012, 14:20 »
0
Total submitted not every time you take a photo i.e. include rejections.

For one thing an image will not a be rejected by every site.

I submit the same content to every site and keep track of total uploads/ portfolio size using Canstock's stats just because it is easy to see the breakdown on their stats page.

It would make no sense to omit what they happen to reject when other sites have accepted the same images.

Not subtracting images you choose to delete from a site is another obvious one for me, for any calculation their being on a site and not selling is the same as them being deleted. The only reason to not take them into account would be to massage your ego with a high RPI, very nice if you are doing this for fun, but useless if you want to evaluate how your business is going and whether you are producing salable images.

I think that is the big difference here. I don't submit the same images to every site. I never really have, and I only submit my new images to to a few sites. So, it never really made sense to keep track of how my whole portfolio was performing on sites that I never submitted my whole portfolio to.

« Reply #44 on: November 03, 2012, 14:30 »
0
The only amounts that really interest me are the amount of money in my account at the end of each month compared to the amount of time put in.  That's what tells me if this is worth doing or not.

« Reply #45 on: November 03, 2012, 15:48 »
0
The only amounts that really interest me are the amount of money in my account at the end of each month compared to the amount of time put in.  That's what tells me if this is worth doing or not.

Very true but ... that's not going to help the OP decide whether to remain exclusive or not (which was why he started the thread!).

« Reply #46 on: November 03, 2012, 15:59 »
0
The only amounts that really interest me are the amount of money in my account at the end of each month compared to the amount of time put in.  That's what tells me if this is worth doing or not.

Very true but ... that's not going to help the OP decide whether to remain exclusive or not (which was why he started the thread!).
You are right of course.  I forgot how this thread started.

mattdixon

« Reply #47 on: November 08, 2012, 09:12 »
0
Oh hang on.  I hadn't seen the OP's method of calculating.  I didn't do it that way at all.  The way I calculated was:

Monthly income divided by total images in port.

Do tell me if I'm wrong to do it that way.

It's fine to do it that way.

The reason I calculated it my way is to give a smoother average, some months are better than others, Sept would be higher than July or December for example - "calculation is current yearly $ total divided by current image total divided by current month (10 in this case)."
« Last Edit: November 08, 2012, 09:37 by mattdixon »

mattdixon

« Reply #48 on: November 08, 2012, 09:43 »
0
The op needs to figure out what he / she might lose by being non-exclusive on IS and then maybe some detail on how RPI per accepted image compares between IS and SS for non exclusives generally. The fact that Johnny makes $1 and Fred makes 10c on SS is not useful info.

I've got a good idea of how much my income will drop when ditching the crown, I need to make an educated guess on how much my portfolio is worth on other sites and whether I can recover my income. The fact that Johnny makes $1 tells me the Shutterstock is a serious contender, Fred needs to sharpen his skills.

« Reply #49 on: November 08, 2012, 10:03 »
0
or you do?


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
15 Replies
6043 Views
Last post November 19, 2010, 11:32
by nruboc
15 Replies
4301 Views
Last post December 10, 2012, 16:08
by Tabimura
21 Replies
4175 Views
Last post October 03, 2013, 05:17
by FiledIMAGE
6 Replies
2634 Views
Last post January 26, 2014, 19:21
by Ron
20 Replies
4481 Views
Last post March 16, 2014, 10:24
by dingles

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle