Microstock Photography Forum - General > Stock Performer

What's the better upload strategy? All in one go? Or spread-out over the months?

(1/2) > >>

StockPerformer.com:
This is probably one of the most important blog articles we've ever written. We really wanted to understand the differences between uploading a set of files in one go versus spread them out over various months, or even years. We put the effort into crunching the numbers and hope the results are useful to you.

Our results are actually not what you would expect. Most people do not follow what we consider to be the better strategy. So have a look and please comment! We are really looking forward to your thoughts!

https://www.stockperformer.com/blog/upload-it-all-in-one-go-vs-spreading-it-out-what-makes-more-money/

SuperPhoto:
ty, are the statistics you have based on an aggregate of the users, or just 1 off cases? thanks.

StockPerformer.com:
As written in the article, the revenue profile was averaged from over 20,000 files on different agencies.

The remaining curves are simulations based on that revenue profile.

pancaketom:
I thought you would actually have data from users who uploaded big batches vs. spreading them out rather than making a bunch of assumptions and modelling off of those assumptions. Information on rejection rates and search algorithm shifts based on upload rates would be very interesting. For example if you don't upload for X amount of time is your portfolio penalized or is it boosted if you upload? Do very large upload batches have higher rejection rates?

It certainly used to be the case that upload batches either nearly all passed or nearly all failed at some sites(you got a harsh reviewer or an easy reviewer). If a huge batch hit the harsh review and got nearly 100% rejected that would be a big blow. By spreading things out a bit you decreased the chance of everything getting rejected and it would be easier to resubmit the ones that were rejected out of hand.

One big reason to upload all the images now is because it seems that revenue drops every year - there are less sales for less money and the artist gets a smaller percentage from each sale. So if you could have uploaded everything in 2015 you would have made a lot more than uploading them now.

Also making 1.70 per image per month would be wonderful. I certainly don't make anywhere near that anymore. upload 100 images and make 2-4K $ would be pretty sweet. Presumably your average data comes from more professional stock image producers than I am.

I figure that as soon as I have an image ready to go it is worth uploading unless there are a few that are nearly identical in which case I might delay some to the next batch or if it is a seasonal image in which case it might be worth waiting a bit. (for example - upload Easter stuff from now to Easter instead of the week after Easter.)

The only time I have really had a heap of images ready to go and have to decide how fast to upload is when I join a new agency.

cascoly:
sorry, not much there there -- it's hardly "probably one of the most important blog articles we've ever written"

need error bars showing the range of values on the graphs -- eg, if there is a large range for each graph the entire question becomes moot as the 2 graphs start out pretty close.

similarly for the 'average' income - need to know median prices for each data point - the mean can hide a lot - bill gates walks into a bar and the 'average' patrons are all billionaires

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page