Total net revenues across libraries

[andremichel]

Hi,

 

I am setting up a poll where you can anonymously share your total net revenues across all your libraries. This is the total received from libraries after they take

their cut, but ignores your costs of production.

 

I think it is an interesting subject. The more people vote the more informative it will be.

 

Thanks

 

Andy

 

EDIT: By $, I mean USD.

Edited February 28, 2020 by andremichel

[andremichel]

Comments also welcome.

[meanderingemu]

over $100,000    ....  of course i'm in Mexico currently...  😉

 

will drop significantly when i visit friends in Canada.

[andremichel]

1 minute ago, meanderingemu said:

over $100,000    ....  of course i'm in Mexico currently...  😉

 

will drop significantly when i visit friends in Canada.

Ah. Just to clarify I meant USD.

[meanderingemu]

9 minutes ago, andremichel said:

Ah. Just to clarify I meant USD.

 

 

i know, hence the 😉.   but as Canadian we tend to specify since we also use the same symbol for our currency. 

[Michael Ventura]

Sadly, my net revenue from stock,back in the 1990s, was more than double what I take in now...but that shouldn't be surprise.

[andremichel]

4 hours ago, Michael Ventura said:

Sadly, my net revenue from stock,back in the 1990s, was more than double what I take in now...but that shouldn't be surprise.

When you say more than double, are you adjusting for inflation? 

[Michael Ventura]

No, no adjustments.  I used to take in between $20-30,000/year from agencies and direct sales but now it is $5-10,000 with relatively few direct sales. Prices per license have come way down since the 1980-90s, thanks to micros and the millions of images that are now readily available.  If I adjusted for inflation, it would be even worse.  Fortunately my assignment work has picked up since the 90s and it has offset the loss of stock income.

[John Mitchell]

I've actually been making more from stock photography since the Web and Alamy came along. During the 90's, I was mixing stock photography with teaching and freelance writing. Most of my stock sales were through a small agency (now gone) specializing in Latin America. I also licensed images on my own and had a number of regular clients. Image prices were of course much higher back then, almost always $$$, and there were lots of reuses to charge for. However, the increase in sales volume brought on by the digital world has been a real boon for me despite the regrettable "race to the bottom".

Edited February 29, 2020 by John Mitchell

[andremichel]

53 minutes ago, Michael Ventura said:

No, no adjustments.  I used to take in between $20-30,000/year from agencies and direct sales but now it is $5-10,000 with relatively few direct sales. Prices per license have come way down since the 1980-90s, thanks to micros and the millions of images that are now readily available.  If I adjusted for inflation, it would be even worse. 

I put 30k into a UK inflation calculator using 1990 as input date and output result adjusted for inflation today is 73k.

 

If inflation is similar for USA then your current revenue levels are equivalent to a 90% drop. 

[Michael Ventura]

22 minutes ago, andremichel said:

I put 30k into a UK inflation calculator using 1990 as input date and output result adjusted for inflation today is 73k.

 

If inflation is similar for USA then your current revenue levels are equivalent to a 90% drop. 

 

Could be but I am still living comfortably on just my income... thank goodness!

[andremichel]

Thanks to everyone who has voted so far. 

 

Anymore? 

[Stephen Lloyd]

A sample of 55 voters on Alamy is not significant statistically - I doubt even Cambridge Analytica would use the data. Take it back, they'd find a way to use and sell it. Which is why I did not give information away! and there was no "what's a sale" option.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Stephen Lloyd

[Bryan]

I came late into this game and just caught the tail end of the decent fees, however my stock income rose steadily year on year as I learned the trade and added to my collection. That came to an end a couple of years ago as falling fees and intense competition cut deep, now on a slippery slope in the wrong direction.....

[andremichel]

On 04/03/2020 at 14:14, Stephen Lloyd said:

A sample of 55 voters on Alamy is not significant statistically - I doubt even Cambridge Analytica would use the data. Take it back, they'd find a way to use and sell it. Which is why I did not give information away! and there was no "what's a sale" option.

 

Political polls of 1000 are said to have a margin of error of 3% where the electorate are 10s of millions. So hopefully with 59 votes so far, the margin of error in relation to the 20,000 active Alamy contributors, isn't large enough to make this vote worthless.

 

I also suspect inactive contributors are doing significantly worse as a whole, so this poll is unlikely to represent them.

 

[meanderingemu]

4 minutes ago, andremichel said:

 

Political polls of 1000 are said to have a margin of error of 3% where the electorate are 10s of millions. So hopefully with 59 votes so far, the margin of error in relation to the 20,000 active Alamy contributors, isn't large enough to make this vote worthless.

 

I also suspect inactive contributors are doing significantly worse as a whole, so this poll is unlikely to represent them.

 

 

 

well built, with proper sampling polls would have that margin of error.  Voluntary answer polls would never have enough credibility . 

 

 

 

[spacecadet]

On 04/03/2020 at 14:14, Stephen Lloyd said:

A sample of 55 voters on Alamy is not significant statistically - I doubt even Cambridge Analytica would use the data. Take it back, they'd find a way to use and sell it. Which is why I did not give information away! and there was no "what's a sale" option.

I'm reassured by the fact that the results appear to be a normal distribution or bell curve, as you'd expect.

Without knowing the number of active contributors, I don't think you can  conclude that it's not statistically significant- only that it's a small sample.

[meanderingemu]

6 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

I'm reassured by the fact that the results appear to be a normal distribution or bell curve, as you'd expect.

Without knowing the number of active contributors, I don't think you can  conclude that it's not statistically significant- only that it's a small sample.

 

 

not a bell curve since the bands are not equal.  If you did bands of $1000, i suspect the first band at 27% might be the largest,