Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Theoretically, the more images you have in your collection, the smaller the odds that a single image image will license. If you have 3000 images, then the mathematical odds are 1 in 3000; but if you have 30,000 images, they are 1 in 30K. Of course there are many other factors at work, such as demand, image quality, timing, supply, luck, etc. Still, I find this stuff fascinating. It seems that as one's collection gets larger, all the factors start getting mixed up in mysterious ways, and the whole system becomes unstable. At some point entropy and eventually chaos (so-called, anyway) must set in. Perhaps quantum physics has an answer to all this? 🐱

 

 

I'm tempted to make the analogy of virtual particles popping in and out of existence to PU sales that subsequently get refunded..... 😝

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think licenses per month per 1000 images is a very useful statistics, along with $ per image per year. Not so much to compare to other people, but to assess and, if necessary, change where one's efforts go.

 

Case in point is our own statistics and how it affects what we do.

 

Our Alamy portfolio is mostly documentary, aka shooting stock-worthy scenes in front of the lens on our walks, drives and travels.

28 sales over the last 12 months from 2.5K images -> 0.9 sales per month per 1000 images

 

Our "elsewhere" (not microstock) collection of market-focused, specialized, produced images:

584 sales over the last 12 months from 5.6K images -> 8.7 sales per month per 1000 images.

 

It makes it very clear where we should focus our future efforts.

 

GI

Edited by giphotostock
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

Theoretically, the more images you have in your collection, the smaller the odds that a single image image will license. If you have 3000 images, then the mathematical odds are 1 in 3000; but if you have 30,000 images, they are 1 in 30K. Of course there are many other factors at work, such as demand, image quality, timing, supply, luck, etc. Still, I find this stuff fascinating. It seems that as one's collection gets larger, all the factors start getting mixed up in mysterious ways, and the whole system becomes unstable. At some point entropy and eventually chaos (so-called, anyway) must set in. Perhaps quantum physics has an answer to all this? 🐱

 

John

i think your statistical analysis is incorrect.  The probability (which I think is what you mean bu “odds”) will increase with the number of images a contributor had. If Alamy has roughly 250,000,000 images then the technical chance of selling an image is x over 250,000,000 where x is the number of sales.  I think, (and I am open to correction) then the probability of a sale by any random contributor is a function of x/250000000 as a ratio of the individual contributors portfolio number.  
 

Sadly, it is not that simple as sales are not  completely random (although they may appear so as the overall number of images grow.) and are dependent on a vast range of factors. 
 

if I was a gambling person I would suggest that Alamy sakes have a Prato distribution where 20% of contributors have 80% of sales.  Likewise 20% of Alamy customers will provide 80% of revenue.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, IanDavidson said:


 

............... where 20% of contributors have 80% of sales. 

 

 

And Alamy should be making sure that they support the 20% of contributors who are making them 80% of their revenue.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, IanDavidson said:

John

i think your statistical analysis is incorrect.  The probability (which I think is what you mean bu “odds”) will increase with the number of images a contributor had. If Alamy has roughly 250,000,000 images then the technical chance of selling an image is x over 250,000,000 where x is the number of sales.  I think, (and I am open to correction) then the probability of a sale by any random contributor is a function of x/250000000 as a ratio of the individual contributors portfolio number.  
 

Sadly, it is not that simple as sales are not  completely random (although they may appear so as the overall number of images grow.) and are dependent on a vast range of factors. 
 

if I was a gambling person I would suggest that Alamy sakes have a Prato distribution where 20% of contributors have 80% of sales.  Likewise 20% of Alamy customers will provide 80% of revenue.  

 

As you say, it certainly isn't simple (or maybe it is).  

 

P.S. I guess you mean the "Pareto distribution." The "80-20 rule" seems to fit my individual portfolio -- i.e. about 20% of my images accounting for 80% of my sales, especially as the size of my collection increases.

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.