MicrostockGroup

Hi Stock Folks,

Right off the bat I want to define successful as the following:

Monthly Gross Sales
Poor-   $100
So So  - $300
Fair-    $500
Good -  $1,000
Very Good  -  $2,000
Excellent   -  $5,000


How many photos are needed to pushed out per week?  For example, if I want to be in the range (see above table) from $300 to $1,000 per month in gross sales how many pics are needed per week. Yes, I know some folks can generate this type of income on few pics because they produce 'money' shots but for the average newbie what can I plan on thus know how to schedule my time.

Thanks.


Tom

thanks for the comments. I find at this point that I have to balance my act with education and than pushing out pics. I try to spend at least one day shooting and later on push them out which can be very time consuming.


Tom

Good points! My goal right now is to do 3 images per day to include uploading to the 15 sites that belong to with the exception of iStock whom I hope to be a member very soon. I failed their admin test twice thus put on a 30 days notice.

Thanks.


Tom

Yep, that's the way to go.

It's not about accepted photos, though 'getting' acceptance standards is an early hurdle.
It's finding images that aren't already oversupplied already (check before planning a shoot) and which buyers actually want. Many low-supply subjects are in very low demand and more suitable for RM, which is the best lesson you can learn from this particular old dog.

like some have said here try it yourself, on previous posts I have told you that it won´t be easy, that´s the real fact so take it month after month, then you will see how it will get

Just thinking to myself- I could write a book for sure and it would be titled- " 101 ways on how to screw up a photo" Now that would be me for sure...

Well said....

This forum is without a doubt the best place to get advice across all platforms! I really appreciate all the answers that have been given to me. I will try to push out quality images from 25 to 50 per week - Once again thank you all so much...


Tom

LOL, I could add some content that one!

 

That method is correct for a single site but not correct for multiple sites. If you contribute files to several sites, you add up the royalties from all the sites and divide the total by the number of DIFFERENT files you have uploaded. Be careful, if the same file is uploaded to more than one site, you should only count it once.

I feel it is important to figure out what you are returning per hour/per year. Start tracking your time, including setup, shooting, uploading, keywording, research, etc. After your port has been online for six months or so, start doing the math. If you spend 10 hours/week for three months, and after all those images have been up for another three months, divide your earnings by 130 (10 hours x 13 weeks), multiply that x 4 (to give you a full year). This will give you $ per hour per year that you earned. It is important to consider that your images only yield returns after they are uploaded and accepted (duh.) - that is why you track the 3 months post instead of the 3 months during which you produced them. As months/years go by, you can get a better feel for how much you are making per hour of work as the ups and downs average out.

Because there are various strategies to microstock (mainly either focusing on quality or quantity - assuming that a better image takes longer to produce on average), the number of files you need to get $1000/mo. could be anywhere from 20 to 10,000. But if you calculate the $/hour/year, you can get a good idea of how well you are spending your time. After you get this initial baseline reading, keep up with what you are making per hour per year - the idea is to make that # go up. So if you find that in the beginning each hour of your work returns you $8/year, then work on getting it up to $10/year and so on. $10/hour doesn't seem like much, but remember that those returns keep coming year after year - the additive and passive income potential over years is what make stock photography so financially rewarding - it is like a retirement plan (kind of).

But in answer to your question, a very rough average for microstock image returns is $2-5/image/year. More calculating, refined photographers will make more per image, "shooters" may make less. So to make $1000/month, you probably need a portfolio of at least 3000 images to make that kind of money, probably more. The more sites you upload those images to, the more you will earn, obviously. But the same image will usually make much more on SS or IS than it will at one of the smaller sites. So you have to decide which sites are worth your time. Uploading and keywording is a not-negligible part of your time working, especially if you lean more towards being a "quantity" contributor.

As you go, you'll get more efficient at shooting, selecting better subjects and style, keywording, etc. - which will make you more efficient overall, and give you higher returns in the long run for each hour you spend working.

But before you worry too much about all this, if you are just beginning then just start learning, shooting, and uploading. See how much you like it. MS certainly isn't a get-rich-quick method. But it can be a get-rich-slow method if you hammer away for years (I have regrettably missed out on a lot by hardly working on my portfolio over the 6 years or so I've been doing this. Some years I only uploaded a few images). You can focus on maxing out the upload limits each week for whatever sites you are using (like IS is 24 photos/week for non-exclusives I think) - that way you know that you are doing as much as you can. As you continue, make those 24 images/week (or whatever # it is) better and better, or take less time - you can increase your yield per hour of work either way: get more done in an hour or get more money for the work you do. But focusing on filling those queue limits can give you a good goal. That kind of assumes that you are going to go at it full force.

One way to maximize your efficiency is to go exclusive with a site. You probably can make more money being independent overall than being an exclusive, but being exclusive is a LOT less work - so you can probably make more money per hour of work being exclusive than being independent (results may vary). But being exclusive carries more risk - what if, say, your exclusive site decides to cut commissions in half? Or, if they go under? Being independent is like having a diversified investment portfolio. Also, each site has their particular pros and cons, and 'types' of images that sell well, etc. I'm sure that IS exclusives make the most money out of the microstock site-exclusive contributors, but you may decide that the benefits of another site work better for you - or that being independent is a better fit. I do several sites just out of principle and so that all my eggs aren't in one basket. But I only upload to 5 sites, so I would probably do better by going to IS exclusively - but I don't like their practices so I won't.

It is good that you are thinking about these issues and asking questions, but the best way to learn is to just browse the collections and get an idea of what kind of images are needed, and start making and uploading those types of images ASAP. You will naturally figure out what works for you as you go - and keep asking questions and reading forums!

Also, take note that this advice is coming from someone who has just a few small ports - so take it with a grain of salt. This is just the way I think about microstock. People doing it full-time have a lot more at stake, and so may have thought harder about these issues.