Author Topic: Will live sales tracking and stats ever be implemented? (Read 12934 times)

stockman11 · « **on:** December 19, 2018, 22:01 »

It's laughable that we have to wait 20th of the month. I mean we do live in the 2nd decade of the 21st century, and the 3rd one is getting nearer.

trek · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2018, 22:03 »

istock used to have real time reporting. They decided you don't deserve it.

pancaketom · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2018, 22:04 »

In the first decade of the 21st century they were able to do it. Maybe they will report yearly sales by October in the 3rd decade.

davidbautista · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2018, 22:09 »

It's because of the credit system. They wait that people buy certain amount of pictures each month with their subscription. It's kind of silly but actually if someone just buy one picture (yours) with a subscription or pack you are lucky

Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #4 on:** December 20, 2018, 01:13 »

Quote from: davidbautista on December 19, 2018, 22:09

It's because of the credit system. ...

Threadbare excuse.

If that were the real reason they could report earnings on December 1st for November but they don't. They could display real time sales stats with some items marked for delayed reporting (and use a minimum value as the placeholder)

They benefit financially from delaying payments to contributors for as long as possible and that's why they've stretched things out more and more over time.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 20, 2018, 04:17 »

They could easily report which pictures have sold under which licence without specifying how much for.

dpimborough · « **Reply #6 on:** December 20, 2018, 04:26 »

If they really cared they would and if they really, really cared they would also pay decent royalty rates.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** December 20, 2018, 04:46 »

Quote from: davidbautista on December 19, 2018, 22:09

It's because of the credit system. They wait that people buy certain amount of pictures each month with their subscription. It's kind of silly but actually if someone just buy one picture (yours) with a subscription or pack you are lucky

Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk

To be fair, my average subs sale value now is considerably higher than it was when we got a flat rate. (It's PA that's killing me, as well as much lower overall sales).
If I was asked to trade late stats for live stats with the old flat rate for subs, it'd be a no-brainer.

Harvepino · « **Reply #8 on:** December 20, 2018, 06:16 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on December 20, 2018, 01:13

Quote from: davidbautista on December 19, 2018, 22:09
It's because of the credit system. ...
They could display real time sales stats with some items marked for delayed reporting (and use a minimum value as the placeholder)

True. I think that Photospin had similar system of earnings, yet there was real time reporting. It was a bit odd, because your earnings could actually be decreasing during month, but it did exist.

Just by looking at the spreadsheets and reports from iStock, I can see at first glance that there are multiple stupidly complex obsolete corporate database systems from which outputs need to be processed to give us our reports... no wonder it takes so long. Don't even want to think how many manual interventions are needed, what the error rates are and what the cost of that whole dinosaur system is.

stockman11 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 20, 2018, 06:22 »

Credit system or not, having live sales and stats is a must. The values can be adjusted latter if needed. The system has to be live and automatic. All other sites are live and automatic so there are no excuses.

ShadySue · « **Reply #10 on:** December 20, 2018, 08:13 »

Late stats aren't motivating; but falling sales and tiny rpd are much more demotivating to me. YMMV.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 20, 2018, 08:16 »

Quote from: ShadySue on December 20, 2018, 08:13

Late stats aren't motivating; but falling sales and tiny rpd are much more demotivated to me. YMMV.

Yes while better stats are good and should really be expected as a matter of course they are not really essential. Bad stats don't stop me uploading bad income does. None of the sites provide decent metrics in my view.

davidbautista · « **Reply #12 on:** December 20, 2018, 23:16 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 20, 2018, 04:17

They could easily report which pictures have sold under which licence without specifying how much for.

Indeed. They kind of do that but in a weird hidden way.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #13 on:** December 21, 2018, 01:46 »

Quote from: davidbautista on December 20, 2018, 23:16

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 20, 2018, 04:17
They could easily report which pictures have sold under which licence without specifying how much for.
Indeed. They kind of do that but in a weird hidden way.

I can only find reference to the number sold rather than the actual image?

davidbautista · « **Reply #14 on:** December 21, 2018, 08:33 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 21, 2018, 01:46

Quote from: davidbautista on December 20, 2018, 23:16
Quote from: Pauws99 on December 20, 2018, 04:17
They could easily report which pictures have sold under which licence without specifying how much for.
Indeed. They kind of do that but in a weird hidden way.
I can only find reference to the number sold rather than the actual image?

That is true. It's just a whole number. You can use the app to see the views everyday but it's more guessing than actually the accurate data. Istock should change that! And why they take 20 days to report the previous month?

Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #15 on:** December 21, 2018, 12:49 »

Oh no, I like the system and the credit system, that way I can wait for a month to see I just got a 3 cent payment for a download. I'd hate to see those over the whole time period, day after day.

Yes I'm kidding, but no I'm not.

If I saw the 3 cent and under 12 cent downloads, as they were coming in, I'd just have more days of the month when I'd be angry. This way it's just once a month or when I look back at sales data. 3 cents!

PHOTO iStockphoto 0.03$ 1
PHOTO iStock Essentials 0.03$ 1

davidbautista · « **Reply #16 on:** December 21, 2018, 12:52 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on December 21, 2018, 12:49

Oh no, I like the system and the credit system, that way I can wait for a month to see I just got a 3 cent payment for a download. I'd hate to see those over the whole time period, day after day. Yes I'm kidding, but no I'm not.

If I saw the 3 cent and under 12 cent downloads, as they were coming in, I'd just have more days of the month when I'd be angry. This way it's just once a month or when I look back at sales data. 3 cents!

PHOTO iStockphoto 0.03$ 1
PHOTO iStock Essentials 0.03$ 1

Should I cry or laugh

Enviado desde mi ALP-L29 mediante Tapatalk

landbysea · « **Reply #17 on:** December 29, 2018, 10:21 »

Back in the slide days earnings agencies paid annually. When I sold to publishers direct the terms were 90 days after publication, which could be a year off.
Maybe live stats does not accurately reflect how business is done. You would be counting chickens before the eggs hatched.

john_woodcock · « **Reply #18 on:** December 29, 2018, 10:43 »

I've been a freelancer in publishing for 35+ years and I have never been paid 90 days after publication, that is crazy. 30 days from invoice date is normal, and sometimes late payment may stretch this to 60 days but I have never ever heard of anyone waiting a year or more for payment. Whereabouts does this happen?

dbvirago · « **Reply #19 on:** December 29, 2018, 13:55 »

It would take a computer with the processing power of a 1974 Radio Shack calculator to perform such a feat/

H2O · « **Reply #20 on:** December 29, 2018, 14:38 »

It has to be because Getty dont want us to have this information, there can be no other reason, all the other sites provide up to date stats.

The question should be, Why does Getty not want this information to be available?

ShadySue · « **Reply #21 on:** December 29, 2018, 15:13 »

Quote from: H2O on December 29, 2018, 14:38

It has to be because Getty dont want us to have this information, there can be no other reason, all the other sites provide up to date stats.

The question should be, Why does Getty not want this information to be available?

There could indeed be something nefarious.
Or they could just be technically incompetent. Or it would be too much of a hassle (cost money) to report sales live, but calculate the amount owed monthly.
Or it could just be what they say: Getty like many other macros always reported monthly, so they put iStock into line with that.
Or some combination of the above.
Why not contact their support for their cookie cutter answer? It's not as though posting here will make any difference.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #22 on:** December 29, 2018, 16:00 »

Quote from: H2O on December 29, 2018, 14:38

It has to be because Getty dont want us to have this information, there can be no other reason, all the other sites provide up to date stats.

The question should be, Why does Getty not want this information to be available?

The question is " we all know IS reporting is awful and will stay that way is it reason enough not to submit?"

pancaketom · « **Reply #23 on:** December 29, 2018, 16:55 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 29, 2018, 16:00

Quote from: H2O on December 29, 2018, 14:38
It has to be because Getty dont want us to have this information, there can be no other reason, all the other sites provide up to date stats.

The question should be, Why does Getty not want this information to be available?
The question is " we all know IS reporting is awful and will stay that way is it reason enough not to submit?"

no, but 85% is

Pauws99 · « **Reply #24 on:** December 29, 2018, 17:03 »

Quote from: pancaketom on December 29, 2018, 16:55

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 29, 2018, 16:00
Quote from: H2O on December 29, 2018, 14:38
It has to be because Getty dont want us to have this information, there can be no other reason, all the other sites provide up to date stats.

The question should be, Why does Getty not want this information to be available?
The question is " we all know IS reporting is awful and will stay that way is it reason enough not to submit?"

no, but 85% is

Quite thats a much better reason ;-).

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Will live sales tracking and stats ever be implemented? (Read 12934 times)

stockman11

trek

pancaketom

davidbautista

Jo Ann Snover

Pauws99

dpimborough

ShadySue

Harvepino

stockman11

ShadySue

Pauws99

davidbautista

Pauws99

davidbautista

Uncle Pete

davidbautista

landbysea

john_woodcock

dbvirago

H2O

ShadySue

Pauws99

pancaketom

Pauws99

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors