MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month  (Read 4944 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

csm

« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2018, 05:17 »
+9
Its been said before, but I will say it again too.
People seem to get too caught in numbers and forget at the saleability of each image.
2000 images?
What of?
Doors?
Leaves?
Ducks?
Why not make every image a winner?
Then think, who would buy this image?
What does it say?

Back in the days of RM I used to earn a good living from 500 images.
$1 per image per year was never correct for me.
Probably as a consequence of microstock, I look at newbie portfolios now and I see snaps.
It seems like people buy a camera on the monday and then want to be a stock photographer on Tuesday.
The gap between the two for me was years.


Brasilnut

  • Author of the Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock
« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2018, 05:23 »
+8
Quote
It seems like people buy a camera on the monday and then want to be a stock photographer on Tuesday.

Wednesday, they're complaining their images aren't selling and most quitting by Thursday...

« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2018, 22:22 »
0
It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30. :(
How many images have you online at shutterstock?
Few, around 3.000 images.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 22:25 by alexandersr »

« Reply #28 on: July 19, 2018, 18:10 »
0
It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30. :(
How many images have you online at shutterstock?
Few, around 3.000 images.

You should be earning $300/month for 3,000 images.

« Reply #29 on: July 19, 2018, 19:01 »
+4
It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30. :(
How many images have you online at shutterstock?
Few, around 3.000 images.


You should be earning $300/month for 3,000 images.

I think it doesn't work in that way. It is not a simple rule of three.

« Reply #30 on: July 20, 2018, 08:00 »
+3
No, but 40$ with 3k images is very poor performance.

« Reply #31 on: July 20, 2018, 08:30 »
+1
How long are the 3000 images online. If all uploaded 2008, it won't sell any more.
If all 3000 images uploaded in 2018, it will need some time to start selling.
But if you are continuous uploading at least 1000 images a year you should earn much more than $40 am month.

ShadySue

« Reply #32 on: July 20, 2018, 11:37 »
+5
It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30. :(
Bear in mind that it's profit, not sales, which is important.
It could be that the people who have big sales also have big expenses.
So if you are spending $20 on shoots and earn $30, you're doing better than people who have $500 in expenses but are earning $505

« Reply #33 on: July 20, 2018, 12:21 »
+3
The old rules (i.e. one image equates to $.20 per month) on inventory size are long gone now.  They isn't any mathematical equation to calculate future revenue.  Just do your best with quality and commercial value and submit them anytime. 

« Reply #34 on: July 20, 2018, 12:26 »
0
It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30. :(
Bear in mind that it's profit, not sales, which is important.
It could be that the people who have big sales also have big expenses.
So if you are spending $20 on shoots and earn $30, you're doing better than people who have $500 in expenses but are earning $505
You are so right....another example of the way people misuse statistical measures. One metric on its own tells you nothing.

« Reply #35 on: July 20, 2018, 12:39 »
+1
It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30. :(
Bear in mind that it's profit, not sales, which is important.
It could be that the people who have big sales also have big expenses.
So if you are spending $20 on shoots and earn $30, you're doing better than people who have $500 in expenses but are earning $505
Thanks, one of the best advices i have read here.

« Reply #36 on: July 20, 2018, 12:40 »
+3
It's been a long time since I've posted on forums like this one and can scarcely believe that this is what stock has come to.  $100 a month? The goal was to be making more than $100 a day not too long ago.

Pathetic. 

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #37 on: July 20, 2018, 12:44 »
+1
The goal was to be making more than $100 a day not too long ago.

Speak for yourself. $100 a day?! Pathetic.

« Reply #38 on: July 20, 2018, 13:16 »
+4
My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.

It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.


steho

  • Please take a look at my website
« Reply #39 on: July 20, 2018, 16:30 »
0
It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30. :(

Sure.  Do 3.33 times what youre doing now.

... or 3.33 times better...

...or wait for a 333% pay raise at SS...
Haha, funny:-)

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #40 on: July 20, 2018, 17:43 »
0
My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.

It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.

No, your comment was insulting to the OP, which you've just doubled down on by adding sad to the list... so I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.

« Reply #41 on: July 20, 2018, 18:54 »
0
It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30. :(

Sure.  Do 3.33 times what youre doing now.

... or 3.33 times better...

...or wait for a 333% pay raise at SS...
Haha, funny:-)

Funny,funny! ::)


« Reply #42 on: July 21, 2018, 01:53 »
+3
My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.

It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.

No, your comment was insulting to the OP, which you've just doubled down on by adding sad to the list... so I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.

It was about the industry. That's why it reads "one and can scarcely believe that this is what stock has come to" and then re-affirmed with "My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards".

So whatever you are doubling down on and taking offence about, on behalf of someone else who has not expressed offence themselves, simply doesn't exist.

Those who were here at that start of all of this will remember how a bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day upped their respective games together. At first, our work was laughed at and ridiculed in online forums by the stock production "pros". But collectively we disrupted an entire industry and brought down giants.

That's why it's pathetic and sad that this is what stock has come to - because nobody is benefiting from those early creative efforts if a portfolio of new images cannot make a reasonable return.

ShadySue

« Reply #43 on: July 21, 2018, 02:14 »
0
My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.

It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.

No, your comment was insulting to the OP, which you've just doubled down on by adding sad to the list... so I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.

It was about the industry. That's why it reads "one and can scarcely believe that this is what stock has come to" and then re-affirmed with "My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards".

So whatever you are doubling down on and taking offence about, on behalf of someone else who has not expressed offence themselves, simply doesn't exist.

Those who were here at that start of all of this will remember how a bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day upped their respective games together. At first, our work was laughed at and ridiculed in online forums by the stock production "pros". But collectively we disrupted an entire industry and brought down giants.

That's why it's pathetic and sad that this is what stock has come to - because nobody is benefiting from those early creative efforts if a portfolio of new images cannot make a reasonable return.
The inevitable slippery slope caused first by RF and accelerated by micros. Always someone undercutting, driving down prices.

« Reply #44 on: July 21, 2018, 02:35 »
0
My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.

It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.

No, your comment was insulting to the OP, which you've just doubled down on by adding sad to the list... so I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.

It was about the industry. That's why it reads "one and can scarcely believe that this is what stock has come to" and then re-affirmed with "My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards".

So whatever you are doubling down on and taking offence about, on behalf of someone else who has not expressed offence themselves, simply doesn't exist.

Those who were here at that start of all of this will remember how a bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day upped their respective games together. At first, our work was laughed at and ridiculed in online forums by the stock production "pros". But collectively we disrupted an entire industry and brought down giants.

That's why it's pathetic and sad that this is what stock has come to - because nobody is benefiting from those early creative efforts if a portfolio of new images cannot make a reasonable return.

Did those bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day hope one day to create an industry of equality where a portfolio of new images can make a reasonable return.  When they started there was a level playing field where everyone had a chance, now Shutterstock is stratified, which greatly favours the high earners and excludes new contributors just like the old existing agencies did.

« Reply #45 on: July 21, 2018, 02:40 »
0
My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.

It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.

No, your comment was insulting to the OP, which you've just doubled down on by adding sad to the list... so I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.

It was about the industry. That's why it reads "one and can scarcely believe that this is what stock has come to" and then re-affirmed with "My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards".

So whatever you are doubling down on and taking offence about, on behalf of someone else who has not expressed offence themselves, simply doesn't exist.

Those who were here at that start of all of this will remember how a bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day upped their respective games together. At first, our work was laughed at and ridiculed in online forums by the stock production "pros". But collectively we disrupted an entire industry and brought down giants.

That's why it's pathetic and sad that this is what stock has come to - because nobody is benefiting from those early creative efforts if a portfolio of new images cannot make a reasonable return.

Did those bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day hope one day to create an industry of equality where a portfolio of new images can make a reasonable return.  When they started there was a level playing field where everyone had a chance, now Shutterstock is stratified, which greatly favours the high earners and excludes new contributors just like the old existing agencies did.
Interesting....many on here believe the opposite ;-).

« Reply #46 on: July 21, 2018, 03:00 »
0
My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.

It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.

No, your comment was insulting to the OP, which you've just doubled down on by adding sad to the list... so I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.

It was about the industry. That's why it reads "one and can scarcely believe that this is what stock has come to" and then re-affirmed with "My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards".

So whatever you are doubling down on and taking offence about, on behalf of someone else who has not expressed offence themselves, simply doesn't exist.

Those who were here at that start of all of this will remember how a bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day upped their respective games together. At first, our work was laughed at and ridiculed in online forums by the stock production "pros". But collectively we disrupted an entire industry and brought down giants.

That's why it's pathetic and sad that this is what stock has come to - because nobody is benefiting from those early creative efforts if a portfolio of new images cannot make a reasonable return.

Did those bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day hope one day to create an industry of equality where a portfolio of new images can make a reasonable return.  When they started there was a level playing field where everyone had a chance, now Shutterstock is stratified, which greatly favours the high earners and excludes new contributors just like the old existing agencies did.
Interesting....many on here believe the opposite ;-).

That may still be the case, just depends which part of the strata you are on.

« Reply #47 on: July 21, 2018, 05:12 »
0
My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.

It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.

No, your comment was insulting to the OP, which you've just doubled down on by adding sad to the list... so I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.

It was about the industry. That's why it reads "one and can scarcely believe that this is what stock has come to" and then re-affirmed with "My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards".

So whatever you are doubling down on and taking offence about, on behalf of someone else who has not expressed offence themselves, simply doesn't exist.

Those who were here at that start of all of this will remember how a bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day upped their respective games together. At first, our work was laughed at and ridiculed in online forums by the stock production "pros". But collectively we disrupted an entire industry and brought down giants.

That's why it's pathetic and sad that this is what stock has come to - because nobody is benefiting from those early creative efforts if a portfolio of new images cannot make a reasonable return.

Did those bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day hope one day to create an industry of equality where a portfolio of new images can make a reasonable return.  When they started there was a level playing field where everyone had a chance, now Shutterstock is stratified, which greatly favours the high earners and excludes new contributors just like the old existing agencies did.
Interesting....many on here believe the opposite ;-).

That may still be the case, just depends which part of the strata you are on.

i agree. i see in fotolia many established photographer uploading nothing in the lat years still earning a lot due to th mechanism of these agencies while those who wanted to improve and upload a lot struggle. i hope every agency kill the popular tab, even losing the sales of y popular images, and use other categories.

« Reply #48 on: July 24, 2018, 16:01 »
0
My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.

It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.

No, your comment was insulting to the OP, which you've just doubled down on by adding sad to the list... so I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.

It was about the industry. That's why it reads "one and can scarcely believe that this is what stock has come to" and then re-affirmed with "My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards".

So whatever you are doubling down on and taking offence about, on behalf of someone else who has not expressed offence themselves, simply doesn't exist.

Those who were here at that start of all of this will remember how a bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day upped their respective games together. At first, our work was laughed at and ridiculed in online forums by the stock production "pros". But collectively we disrupted an entire industry and brought down giants.

That's why it's pathetic and sad that this is what stock has come to - because nobody is benefiting from those early creative efforts if a portfolio of new images cannot make a reasonable return.

Did those bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day hope one day to create an industry of equality where a portfolio of new images can make a reasonable return.  When they started there was a level playing field where everyone had a chance, now Shutterstock is stratified, which greatly favours the high earners and excludes new contributors just like the old existing agencies did.
Interesting....many on here believe the opposite ;-).

That may still be the case, just depends which part of the strata you are on.

i agree. i see in fotolia many established photographer uploading nothing in the lat years still earning a lot due to th mechanism of these agencies while those who wanted to improve and upload a lot struggle. i hope every agency kill the popular tab, even losing the sales of y popular images, and use other categories.
:(

« Reply #49 on: August 03, 2018, 05:42 »
0
Quote
i hope every agency kill the popular tab, even losing the sales of y popular images, and use other categories.

I quite like popular provided other rankings are done correctly.
Buyers are happier with a good image rather than a less good newer image.

OF course, SS main problem now is they dont actually QC or review images at all and just accepted everything.  The quality has dropped massively.  So "popular" is pretty much guaranteed to give the buyer a better quality of image to choose from than "New" as a default.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
5638 Views
Last post July 15, 2009, 23:40
by bad to the bone
200 Replies
39410 Views
Last post March 04, 2010, 02:37
by sharply_done
25 Replies
20603 Views
Last post April 18, 2011, 09:55
by Herg
14 Replies
3552 Views
Last post October 07, 2014, 22:26
by zstoimenov
26 Replies
4576 Views
Last post February 23, 2017, 12:18
by WindyTai

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors