MicrostockGroup

While there is no doubt that DT has good royalties, they are not #1 (although they are close).

First, the survey only compared three agencies: IS, SS, and DT.  SS only shows earnings (on average) of 0.25/image since they are subscription-based (and this was based on data before the raise), so that isn't a good comparison.

Second, in my analysis, both StockXpert and LO have higher royalties (on average).  So they would be #3 (according to my analysis).

I am not sure why PDN put that statistic in as that is not what microstock is about.

Macro stock is about earnings per DL.

Microstock is about volume  and earnings per month.

My guess is they put it in so the macro people can say "micro pays less than $1 per photo".  We know that but we also know that volumn is alot higher than macro so that it evens out.

It would be interesting to see the income broken down by percentiles (ie. bottem 10% earned X, top 10% earned X)

I posted this in another forum and I think it's also appropriate here...

OK, I know I always have different views on things, and I don't mean to sound negative towards the survey but I'm not sure what information this survey is telling us and I'm not sure how to look at it.

"Most non-microstock photographers required less than $10K in investment for 2006" that's a very scary statistic in that it can appear a bit deceptive at first. I personally have spent over $15,000 in just equipment this year alone and I don't have any significant lighting equipment to speak of. Last year, I spent close to $10,000 on the same. This doesn't include studio space (which I am trying to secure soon), modeling fees, location fees, insurance, vehicle expenses, etc. I mean honestly, an entry level professional camera is $7,000. A decent medium format camera with a digital back goes for about $22,000. An established photographer, shooting for traditional agencies, isn't going to have to make that initial up front required investment.

My read is that non-microstock photographers made the investment in their equipment when they first started and the barriers to entry into the traditional market place are higher. It appears to me, newer photographers gaining entry into the industry are doing it through the micros or through agencies that don't require the traditional 48mb TIFF file for submission. That means more competition at the micro level...not only from new amateurs signing up, but also from pros moving into the market segment. It also means more opportunities for those like myself that want to make the move into this area. Looking down the road, it looks to me that things are going to get extremely tough and its time, now more than ever, to get serious and establish a concrete foothold before the opportunity slips by.

I was also intrigued by the distribution of income based on specialties. We all know business is a hot topic, but again, I think this can be a bit deceptive. Professional photo shoots sanctioned by a corporate customer are naturally going to bring in more money than a photographer that shoots travel imagery on speculation. My feelings are, all things considered, the distribution appears to be pretty regular amongst all categories.

The thing that really impressed me was the income based on licensing model. Royalty Free imagery does in fact appear to be more lucrative. That's a good thing for us!

Lots to think about in the survey. Am looking forward to further evaluation and the June issue.

As a woman, I found the gender numbers very interesting.  Microstock is the only category where there is equality between men and women in terms of earnings.  That's all to rare in any industry.  What it means is what all of us already know...that microstock's doors are open to everyone, not just the professionals.  Most of the photographers who started off as amateurs in microstock and later became full-time professionals have been women (I only know of a couple of men), too, which leaves me hopeful that the gender equality for income will remain steady.

This easy to estimate: 40% of the microstock respondents averaged about $8500.

Overall, I found the analysis incredibly shallow - almost to the point of being meaningless. I'm not a statistician, but I think that any mention of average is fairly meaningless without mentioning standard deviation.