Interesting topic. But with out thew analysis, based on just a rough gut feeling, there's not much point. Not only that, I wouldn't know where to begin to provide even remotely accurate figures.

In case you're interested in just finding out, read Tom Grill's Image Half Life, or get the values from Arcurs

Interesting topic. But with out thew analysis, based on just a rough gut feeling, there's not much point. Not only that, I wouldn't know where to begin to provide even remotely accurate figures.

In case you're interested in just finding out, read Tom Grill's Image Half Life, or get the values from Arcurs

Watch out the last people that said this shelf life for pictures got his head chopped off by the queen of hearts.  http://www.microstockgroup.com/16812/16812/msg270699/#msg270699

The life span of images has more to do with the agency search engine than the image itself. I was with DT for years before branching out into other agencies and many images that had stopped selling years ago on DT suddenly flew off the shelves at places like SS. The only explanation is that the images were no longer showing up in search results on DT as they tend to favour new material.

I am considering deleting all my old material that no longer sells, wait a year or so and reupload so that they're fresh again.

The life span of images has more to do with the agency search engine than the image itself. I was with DT for years before branching out into other agencies and many images that had stopped selling years ago on DT suddenly flew off the shelves at places like SS. The only explanation is that the images were no longer showing up in search results on DT as they tend to favour new material.

I am considering deleting all my old material that no longer sells, wait a year or so and reupload so that they're fresh again.

Agree. When FT changed it's search to favour new uploads, most of my best selling images just stopped dead. No half-life, no anything except no more sales. After I went to SS in July, one previous best seller on FT has once again become my best seller but now on SS. Fortunately, it's an image that doesn't date too quickly and I see no reason for it to stop selling in the near future.
If only these half-life destroyers would go and do something useful like work in the nuclear industry, the world would be a safer place! 

"Most products have a certain file span on the market. It can be long or short depending on product or service"

Microstock images have the same, life span, of course. Have you ever think what kind of it is or how long it could be average. Lets say, you have a new image/images, how income will change in the future. Something likes that:

1. year income 100%
2. year income 100%
3. year income 75%
etc..

Of course there is thousands of  factors that affect the results, but without that analysis, just average.

How do you know the year income is 100%? 100% compared to what? If it sells better in the 2nd year, will  that be above 100 i.e. 120%? How do you know a photo sold at 100% in the first year? Does That mean every search on a keyword included on your photo resulted in a sale?

I am too new in this business to have an answer on that.

There is no formula as there are far too many variables. In my experience good images, that really encapsulate their subject, can seemingly go on earning forever. Poorer images just get increasingly buried by the sort order.

A lot depends on the particular agency's default sort-order. Istock, for example, can kill best-selling images overnight with a change to their algorithm, as many of us know to our cost. IMHO the best agency for longevity of sales is SS where the 'Popular' default sort-order appears to be just that ... the position attained is entirely based on merit. As long as customers keep choosing it an image will retain it's place.

Once an agency starts messing about with different prices, promoting 'collections', newness, exclusivity, etc then it destroys the natural merit of an image. Having said that, if an image of yours happens to be favoured by the peculiarities of the sort order, then later-life earnings can actually be significantly accelerated. DT's 'Levels' pricing architecture certainly has this effect (although it doesn't appear to help overall portfolio earnings at all).

The life span of images has more to do with the agency search engine than the image itself. I was with DT for years before branching out into other agencies and many images that had stopped selling years ago on DT suddenly flew off the shelves at places like SS. The only explanation is that the images were no longer showing up in search results on DT as they tend to favour new material.

I am considering deleting all my old material that no longer sells, wait a year or so and reupload so that they're fresh again.

Good idea except if they don't accept all the old pictures and you have nothing to sell when it's gone. Everything flys off the shelf at SS better then DT.