Author Topic: some more maths (Read 3426 times)

mtilghma · « **on:** March 08, 2012, 13:04 »

I'm pursuing a phd in something most people would consider "math-y", but I fear I might be missing something on this simple math here...

Shutterstock's subscription is $249 for 25 images a day, or 750 a month. If someone were to download all of those images, that comes out to 33.2c per image. Now I know shutterstock probably makes a lot of money off people not downloading their whole quota, but that is an unknown we cant really quantify right now. So ignoring that, someone at the 25c level makes 75% royalties off of subscription sales... someone at the 33c level makes 99.4% royalties, someone at the 38c level makes 114% royalties.

Often the people balking about fairer royalties also balk about subscription structures, which seems a little backwards to me. Is this ever brought up in those arguments? Am I missing something else?

microstockphoto.co.uk · « **Reply #1 on:** March 08, 2012, 13:21 »

Quote from: mtilghma on March 08, 2012, 13:04

I'm pursuing a phd in something most people would consider "math-y", but I fear I might be missing something on this simple math here...

Shutterstock's subscription is $249 for 25 images a day, or 750 a month. If someone were to download all of those images, that comes out to 33.2c per image. Now I know shutterstock probably makes a lot of money off people not downloading their whole quota, but that is an unknown we cant really quantify right now. So ignoring that, someone at the 25c level makes 75% royalties off of subscription sales... someone at the 33c level makes 99.4% royalties, someone at the 38c level makes 114% royalties.

Often the people balking about fairer royalties also balk about subscription structures, which seems a little backwards to me. Is this ever brought up in those arguments? Am I missing something else?

You know the answer (bolded parts).

The only problem with your maths is the "ignoring that" part: Shutterstock is still in business, and seems like they are doing pretty well, and so are we - despite not knowing our % - so they are not "ignoring that" but found a balance that's working exactly on that. As long as it works for us as well, I don't balk about subs.

sc · « **Reply #2 on:** March 08, 2012, 13:29 »

Their whole business model is based on insurance actuary tables.
They don't make money selling images they make money selling subscriptions, hoping you don't use your total downloads.
But they have a statistical probability that more people won't DL their maximum, and will most likely DL considerably less that what is needed to be profitable.
Then there are the large number of submitters who don't reach payout - some never.
Plus they have that huge float of money they collect and don't pay out for many months down the road.

cthoman · « **Reply #3 on:** March 08, 2012, 13:30 »

I would guess that the percentages they are paying for single image downloads are about what they are paying for subscriptions.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 08, 2012, 14:03 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 06, 2012, 13:50

regarding OD, the all size, is 51$ for 5 files, 10.2$, here is one for 25 files for 235$, 9.4$

Earnings per Download   Lifetime Earnings
$1.88   Less than $500 - 18.4% - 20%
$2.48   $500 to $3,000 - 24.3% - 26.4%
$2.70   $3,000 to $10,000 - 26.4% - 28.7%
$2.85   Over $10,000 - 27.9% - 30.3%

RacePhoto · « **Reply #5 on:** March 08, 2012, 15:43 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 08, 2012, 14:03

Quote from: luissantos84 on March 06, 2012, 13:50
regarding OD, the all size, is 51$ for 5 files, 10.2$, here is one for 25 files for 235$, 9.4$

Earnings per Download   Lifetime Earnings
$1.88   Less than $500 - 18.4% - 20%
$2.48   $500 to $3,000 - 24.3% - 26.4%
$2.70   $3,000 to $10,000 - 26.4% - 28.7%
$2.85   Over $10,000 - 27.9% - 30.3%

True, not everything is subs. although I'm fairly sure about 90% is from that.

In case you didn't find this link mtilghma:

http://submit.shutterstock.com/earnings_schedule.mhtml

Interesting point scukrov, that SS sales are based on actuarial tables. I never thought of it that way.

fotorob · « **Reply #6 on:** March 26, 2012, 10:05 »

For example most image buyers won't download on sundays or if they are in holidays, have to work on location and so on...

lagereek · « **Reply #7 on:** March 26, 2012, 11:02 »

Your maths, is not better then a second rate punk, in the first grade! youve got it the wrong way around, you have to use the formula E=MC2, in order to get it right.
so please get your little notepad and chalk out.

tisk, tisk, tisk!

disorderly · « **Reply #8 on:** March 26, 2012, 11:51 »

It might help to know that in the years when Shutterstock raised prices and earnings on their subscription plans (before the 2008 meltdown in the financial world), they would adjust prices and then wait a couple of months to see how that affected download rates. Only then would they announce new earnings rates for submitters. They set prices with an understanding of how the change would affect customers: some would walk away, some would accept the increase but would be more diligent about using a higher percentage of their download quota, and some would go on as before. That was the theory. But of course the reality might be different, so they would wait for some real world data before increasing our per-image royalty. Careful planning and implementation of a sustainable pricing model.

Batman · « **Reply #9 on:** March 27, 2012, 00:45 »

Quote from: lagereek on March 26, 2012, 11:02

Your maths, is not better then a second rate punk, in the first grade! youve got it the wrong way around, you have to use the formula E=MC2, in order to get it right.
so please get your little notepad and chalk out.

tisk, tisk, tisk!

Divvy or Prat which are you by trade.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: some more maths (Read 3426 times)

mtilghma

microstockphoto.co.uk

sc

cthoman

luissantos84

RacePhoto

fotorob

lagereek

disorderly

Batman

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors