Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ah, the Irish gift of poetry! 

 

Half my sales showed up on the last day of April. I'm still selling 3X the traditionally thought average for collection size.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky I held off until today, as four overnight sales popped in, retrieving what had looked like being the second poor month in succession.

So, end total: 8 sales, $147 net.

Edited by Cryptoprocta
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Worse than average - 55 licences for $1480 gross - only two in $$$, highest $220.

Zooms up however so hopefully better to come in May!

cheers

Kumar (the Doc one)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A month of midgets, 11 for $205. Highest $54, lowest... sorry, I need a magnifying glass to see those tiny numbers. 

Edited by Gabbro
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, gvallee said:

Excellent month with 25 sales and BME for revenue.

 

The analysis of what sold is interesting and proves how crucial diversity of a portfolio is:

landscapes x8, cityscapes x2, birds x3, insects x3, wildlife x1, sign x2, plant x1, people x3, other x2

 

Gen

Certainly, Alamy's diversity algorithm discourages specialism.

 

Edited by Cryptoprocta
Link to post
Share on other sites

Way down - I am on the way to my worst year since I started, including my part first year in 2002. Despite 2017 being my best year for numbers - not revenue though.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
Link to post
Share on other sites

A relatively poor month for me -- but 2 sales on the 30th saved it from being really bad.  I'm still slightly above last year at this time on net revenue so I'm happy.

 

4 sales for $130.70 / $65.37  gross / net.  High $60.93 / $30.47, low 2 PU / presentation at $19.99 / $10.00.  

 

Views and zooms down with 3277 and 14 for a slightly below average CTR of 0.43.

 

Robert

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly above average in terms of volume and revenue.

Half a dozen sales over $100.

Average $37, which is not too bad. 

To sum it up: better than expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had an awesome month!  21 sales and one of the sales to be used for a large mural wall in a Nashville country music museum. One licensed for television, a nice change from the bread and butter sales of editorial websites/newspapers/magazines and travel guides.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Certainly, Alamy's diversity algorithm discourages specialism.

 

 

How so? The diversity algorithm relates to the order of images returned per contributor, not their contents?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gvallee said:

 

How so? The diversity algorithm relates to the order of images returned per contributor, not their contents?

Yes, so if someone was an apple specialist, their files would be spread through searches for apples. Of course, that's a poor example, as a specialist will be able to identify different varieties, but the idea is sound. Any subject for which you have many images, no matter how different, will be spread through any particular search, no matter how high your AR. So even if you have a top rank, you're better to shoot many subjects and be near the top of many searches rather than specialise on producing a variety of images of one subject and be spread over many search pages.

The above tempered by how granularly the buyers search (IME, sometimes they are, often they are not), and how many rival specialists there are for that subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Cryptoprocta said:

Yes, so if someone was an apple specialist, their files would be spread through searches for apples. Of course, that's a poor example, as a specialist will be able to identify different varieties, but the idea is sound. Any subject for which you have many images, no matter how different, will be spread through any particular search, no matter how high your AR. So even if you have a top rank, you're better to shoot many subjects and be near the top of many searches rather than specialise on producing a variety of images of one subject and be spread over many search pages.

The above tempered by how granularly the buyers search (IME, sometimes they are, often they are not), and how many rival specialists there are for that subject.

 

It makes sense, I agree.

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.