No, the volume was like 10 times higher.

Images could have more than 10 000 downloads, so even if you got 30 cents to a dollar, a good series could earn you thousands of dollars and thus you could invest in your production.

There was also more traditional macrostock with higher prices, but my impression was that often money on the micros was higher if you had the right kind of content.

Low price + extremly high volume...which gave you very reliable and predictable income.

Today there is a lot of oversupply, so even a very good series will have a difficult time bringing in production costs.

No, the volume was like 10 times higher.

Images could have more than 10 000 downloads, so even if you got 30 cents to a dollar, a good series could earn you thousands of dollars and thus you could invest in your production.

Before my image was stolen by everyone on the internet, my girl with headset had more than 10K downloads at IS.

No, the volume was like 10 times higher.

Which can be rephrased as "the competition was 1% or less compared to today".

Today there is a lot of oversupply, so even a very good series will have a difficult time bringing in production costs.

There, you said it.

The price is just an EFFECT of a supply that is incredibly large. Prices aren't lowered for no reason. And as we can see here, they haven't even really changed the last 10 years...

What can you do about it? Nothing. Unless you ban companies from making affordable cameras that now most people can buy.

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on March 28, 2019, 03:35

Prices aren't lowered for no reason. And as we can see here, they haven't even really changed the last 10 years...

That's a great argument against this "race to the bottom" talk.

SS didn't touch it's prices/royalties for how many years? 11? 15?

We can also see that over the years SS have paid about 33% commission. Lots come and go promising more but eventually fail or bring commissions to similar levels. Many hugely underestimate the cost of running a sustainable agency. Marketing is probably the most important and expensive thing. It is not in the agencies interests to reduce prices.

I just figured this up the other day for iStock. RPD at 40%:
2008 1.85
2009 2.44
2018 3.59

Yeah, my rpd is higher now than  in 2008/9 (but nowadays I get far fewer dls), but what about e.g. 2012 or 3, my rpd was higher then (I know that's not what the OP asked).

rpd, return per download.

which needs total sales volume to really give you the real picture. an rpd of 100 dollars but only sales once a year doesn�t really help you.

Quote from: asiseeit on March 28, 2019, 16:27

I just figured this up the other day for iStock. RPD at 40%:
2008 1.85
2009 2.44
2018 3.59

40% of what for what? You know what they charge? How's your total income on IS since 2008?

My RPD Alamy is $50 only 2 sell a year, the number RPD means nothing.

Volume was much higher before 2012. Competition up, sales down, income down. But I don't feed the parasites or the race to the bottom, might be different for desperate people who put their work anywhere that will take it, probably worse for them. If you feed the bottom agencies you are stealing from your own earnings, forcing prices down.

The OP's question was specifically about RPD.

.

Curious - for anyone that was actually submitting images in 2008/2009...

What was the income like then? I know right now it is often $0.30-$1/image... But what was it like then? Were you getting regular $200 sales/image, so maybe $5k/month in sales? Or..... what?

EDIT: Now that I realized some people are also replying about "RPD" - I am also curious as to sales volume/portfolio sizes. I.e., say you had 1000 images, how much would you have made $$$ wise say in 2005, 2010, 2015, etc? Thanks!

RPD lower, Volume Lower, Income Lower. Competition higher, much higher.
February 14, 2010 - Shutterstock reaches 10 million Photos
Feb. 14, 2019 - 250 Million images on Shutterstock

Don't do percentages or times higher, the answer is, competition was 10 million images, now the competition is 250 million images.

We can also see that over the years SS have paid about 33% commission. Lots come and go promising more but eventually fail or bring commissions to similar levels. Many hugely underestimate the cost of running a sustainable agency. Marketing is probably the most important and expensive thing. It is not in the agencies interests to reduce prices.

If I remember the annual reports, the share SS paid to contributors is more like 22% Jo Ann reads more carefully she will know.

Marketing for a successful agency is a big expense, and the reason why the small ones stay small or will close. Without marketing and new customers there is no growth. On the other side, iStock lost their market share because of competition from new agencies advertising and price cutting. Holding the buyers you have is also important for any agency.

On the positive, my sales did get a bump up when I added 3,000 Editorial images in January 2012.  If I'm only comparing photos and illustrations to the same photos and illustrations, and new photos and illustrations, excluding Editorial content, a fair description would be income implosion. 

iStock RPD is easily 1/3rd of what it used to be. (unfortunately all my Editorial is gone from there, so not a totally fair comparison) Alamy is about 28% of what it was early on 2010 and before. FT/AS has increased for me, now at .87 RPD and I have nothing much there or exceptional. SS is at .70 RPD, which could be up due to better content and different images. SS did not increase prices and ELs are actually lower, but OD and S&O are better.

I can't compare years to modern because my content changed. The above is the best I can offer. Pond5 is new, doesn't count. I dropped DT, went back, no fair data there either.

And the other 10-15 or maybe 20 places I tried and dropped, my sales are 0, my RPD is the same and I'm happy as can be, to be done with them. Hey FOAPers, RPD was $5 and always the same (just a bit of sarcastic enlightenment. If I remember, seven sales in two years) Also dropped.

Quote from: YadaYadaYada on March 29, 2019, 07:12

Quote from: asiseeit on March 28, 2019, 16:27

I just figured this up the other day for iStock. RPD at 40%:
2008 1.85
2009 2.44
2018 3.59

40% of what for what? You know what they charge? How's your total income on IS since 2008?

My RPD Alamy is $50 only 2 sell a year, the number RPD means nothing.

Volume was much higher before 2012. Competition up, sales down, income down. But I don't feed the parasites or the race to the bottom, might be different for desperate people who put their work anywhere that will take it, probably worse for them. If you feed the bottom agencies you are stealing from your own earnings, forcing prices down.

The OP's question was specifically about RPD.

My mistake assuming he wanted both.