MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 2008 Microstock Photographers Survey [The Results]  (Read 19572 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: March 20, 2009, 11:44 »
0
Finally, here are the results of the survey covering the 2008 microstock industry.


http://microstockgroup.com/holdingbin/MicrostockSurvey.pdf


« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2009, 11:47 »
0
Finally, here are the results of the survey covering the 2008 microstock industry.


http://microstockgroup.com/holdingbin/MicrostockSurvey.pdf


Would you mind if I posted a link & some extracts on our blog? This is great stuff - thanks for pulling it together!

Rahul

« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2009, 11:51 »
0
Of course, feel free.


vonkara

« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2009, 12:18 »
0
I'm surprised to see Shutterstock with the most RPI. I thought Istock would be first. Maybe subs are working after all, but only on SS ;)

« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2009, 12:30 »
0
.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2009, 12:35 by Danicek »

vonkara

« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2009, 12:36 »
0
Thanks it's true. I looked at the graph and got confused because IS and SS were green. That's the proof that my laptop LCD not equal my Samsung monitor

« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2009, 12:48 »
0
Great work Leaf! Thanks for the time. Since the participation was totally anonymous (favoring honesty) and the number of participants is considerable, this survey will get wide attention from the sites and the pundits. Lee Torrens knows what to write in his next post ;-)

« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2009, 12:52 »
0
I'm surprised to see Shutterstock with the most RPI. I thought Istock would be first. Maybe subs are working after all, but only on SS ;)

Not so sure about that. My RPI went up drastically on SS after On Demand and Extended took off, and that's quite recent.


RT


« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2009, 13:08 »
0
I'm surprised to see Shutterstock with the most RPI. I thought Istock would be first. Maybe subs are working after all, but only on SS ;)

That's because you've misread it  ???

IStock gave the highest RPI with 38.11% and then Shutterstock was 26.64%

What I don't understand though is that Shutterstock came out top for earnings in 2008!



« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2009, 13:10 »
0
I'm surprised to see Shutterstock with the most RPI. I thought Istock would be first. Maybe subs are working after all, but only on SS ;)

That's because you've misread it  ???

IStock gave the highest RPI with 38.11% and then Shutterstock was 26.64%

What I don't understand though is that Shutterstock came out top for earnings in 2008!




I wonder if it's because people had larger portfolios on SS, especially given IS non-exclusive upload limits.

« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2009, 13:23 »
0
This is some good information.  I would like to see more details in the earnings department.  The way I'm reading those results is that the top earner made $120,000 and the bottom made $10.  Kudo's to the bottom guy for being honest by the way.  That is a huge spread between top and bottom.  I understand that the average of everyone was around 10K but where were the bulk of the annual incomes?  Just a couple of 6 figure answer could skew that average quite a bit.  Any way to get a break down of for example..how many were below 5K, between 5K and 10K, 10K to 15K, 15-25,25-50, 50 to 100 and more than 100. 

I'm very curious about this as most people keep their actual numbers pretty tight lipped.

Thanks,

Mat

Yeah, I will try to get some of those graphs out soon.  There is a VERY steep curve on stuff like that.  Very few people earning many $$ and the rest earning very little.  The same with number of images.  A few people have a lot and a lot of people have a few.

« Reply #13 on: March 20, 2009, 13:30 »
0
I guess I'm the youngest one here @ 18, or at least the youngest to take the survey.  ;)

« Reply #14 on: March 20, 2009, 13:58 »
0
The way I'm reading those results is that the top earner made $120,000 and the bottom made $10.  Kudo's to the bottom guy for being honest by the way.  That is a huge spread between top and bottom.  I understand that the average of everyone was around 10K but where were the bulk of the annual incomes?

Yes the distribution will be very skewed and not Gaussian, so you can't rely on standard deviations and means as they are a parametrical statistics descriptive measures. The best nonparametric description (ic of non-normal, non-Gaussian [like skewed or bimodal]) distributions are the quartiles.

For instance, Q2 (Q stands for quartile)is the median: the value below and above which are half of the cases. In a distribution skewed to the left (many people with small incomes, few with high) the median will be lower than the mean but give a more realistic description. (Remember the statistician that drowned crossing a river with a mean depth of 2 feet).

Q1 is the value (here income) were 1/4 of the cases are lower, and 3/4 are higher, also called percentile25. Q3 is the value where 3/4 of the cases are lower, percentile75. Percentile50 is of course the median.

So for a realistic central tendency of the incomes, just look at percentile25/Q2/median, and for a "bulk" or spread measure, look at the interquartile range Q3-Q1 which gives the limits between where half of the incomes are.

Sorry to offend when I'm too exhaustive.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2009, 14:29 by FlemishDreams »

vonkara

« Reply #15 on: March 20, 2009, 14:05 »
0
I'm surprised to see Shutterstock with the most RPI. I thought Istock would be first. Maybe subs are working after all, but only on SS ;)

That's because you've misread it  ???

IStock gave the highest RPI with 38.11% and then Shutterstock was 26.64%

What I don't understand though is that Shutterstock came out top for earnings in 2008!




I know I explain it here by replying to Danicek. He told me the same , but LOL he edited his post to only add a point (.)

Thanks it's true. I looked at the graph and got confused because IS and SS were green. That's the proof that my laptop LCD not equal my Samsung monitor

« Reply #16 on: March 20, 2009, 14:08 »
0
What I don't understand though is that Shutterstock came out top for earnings in 2008!


That's pure math and an inevitable consequence of the tight upload restriction on IS for non-exclusives. Ports on SS are probably much larger since SS has no upload limits (yet  ;) ).

I guess I'm the youngest one here @ 18


No, you're not. My
photography partner
(and main model) sneaked in here at MSG but he decided to stay under the radar till he can register without restriction at microstock. He's just lurking for now.

Off topic:
youtube
can be a free marketing tool even for photos.
AndresR
,
Arcurs
, etc... and of course the well-know, simply amazing and fantastic Vonkara videos:
here
and
here
;D
« Last Edit: March 20, 2009, 15:11 by FlemishDreams »


« Reply #17 on: March 20, 2009, 14:37 »
0
why is the first quartile (Q1) often larger than Q2?

eg: how many images do you have online?

Q1     2435.5
Q2     612.5
Q3     1500
Q4     13000

seems that Q1 should be the lowest.


« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2009, 14:43 »
0
seems that Q1 should be the lowest.

You're right. The Q values are totally mixed up. I don't know whether it's generated by the site or Leaf mislabeled the measures.

vonkara

« Reply #19 on: March 20, 2009, 15:02 »
0

Off topic: youtube can be a free marketing tool even for photos. AndresR, Arcurs, etc...

Hey you forgot the well known Vonkara advertisement video on youtube

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPmeLDn_ylA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh-f4GCxXNY[/youtube]

I know it's terrible. But I had so much fun making them LOL
« Last Edit: March 20, 2009, 15:05 by Vonkara »


« Reply #21 on: March 20, 2009, 15:14 »
0
Hey you forgot the well known Vonkara advertisement video on youtube.


Of course not! You missed the most important part of my post:
... and of course the well-know, simply amazing and fantastic Vonkara videos: here and here;D


 :P

« Reply #22 on: March 20, 2009, 21:25 »
0
Great work, thank you for doing all that work, it is very interesting to see all those stats and I'm sure many people will find it quite useful, keep up the great work Leaf!

« Reply #23 on: March 20, 2009, 21:48 »
0

Off topic: youtube can be a free marketing tool even for photos. AndresR, Arcurs, etc...

Hey you forgot the well known Vonkara advertisement video on youtube

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPmeLDn_ylA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh-f4GCxXNY[/youtube]

I know it's terrible. But I had so much fun making them LOL


We should have a challenge... who can put together a youtube to flog their stock images.  Would be a first for me.


« Reply #25 on: March 20, 2009, 22:08 »
0
Thanks Leaf - for a very good and informative survey
Smiling Jack

lisafx

« Reply #26 on: March 21, 2009, 10:39 »
0
Really interesting information!  Thanks for taking the time to compile it Tyler :)


« Reply #27 on: March 21, 2009, 16:03 »
0
Can we use YouTube for commercial purposes?

« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2009, 09:35 »
0
Here are two more little graphs.  One displaying the top performing site according to RPI, and one of the number of photographers in each income bracket.


« Reply #29 on: March 26, 2009, 16:33 »
0
interesting statistics... thank you leaf!!!!
I like those numbers  :)

« Reply #30 on: March 27, 2009, 01:21 »
0
Thanks Tyler, This is great stuff.

If you divide the average gross annual earnings ($10076.68)  by average number of images online (1156.4) you get an average of earnings of $8.71 per image per year.  I have no idea if this is a valid analysis but I find it interesting.

c h e e r s
fred


« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2009, 02:19 »
0
Yeah, that is probably not too far off, but the people with really great portfolios are getting much higher $/pic/year than that, and the people with 10 crappy pictures are getting 0 $/pic/year

The problem with averages in microstock is that the playing field is so spread out, it doesn't really work.  People hear of the $1,000,000 istock is giving to it's contributors every week then think, yeah well it is going to 100,000 photographers - that is only $10 each.. HA what a rip off.  What they don't realize is that a small % of the photographers are taking the majority of the $1,000,000 giving them a decent paycheck.

« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2009, 04:18 »
0

Yeah, I figure it is the old 80/20 power curve with 80% of the earnings going to 20% of the contributors.

c h e e r s
fred


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2166 Views
Last post March 05, 2009, 10:19
by Sean Locke Photography
18 Replies
8074 Views
Last post December 22, 2010, 01:26
by RacePhoto
29 Replies
10845 Views
Last post September 13, 2011, 04:47
by Stock_Fox
13 Replies
4637 Views
Last post February 12, 2012, 22:35
by janecat
25 Replies
6355 Views
Last post February 20, 2013, 15:54
by PixelBytes

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors