MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Break even point  (Read 10679 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 01, 2015, 17:39 »
+1
What is everyone's break even point on a per file basis? No doubt it is different for everyone. I was trying to work it out on a spreadsheet today. If I looked at my expenses for 2014, I need every file that I upload to earn around $10 before I can break even on my costs. This does not count whatever my own time is worth. It does count studio rent, equipment purchase, props, travel, models, etc. Probably like many other contributors, most of my files never sell once, so which means the ones do sell need to work much harder to help me reach overall break even point.

As an iStock exclusive, it definitely concerns me that I might not be able to break even on newer work, because the sales keep disappearing. Overall I'm still profitable, largely because files from previous years still sell. But it is definitely important to me that all new files pull their own weight and pay for themselves over time. Too bad it will take a number of years before I find out if recently uploaded files are successful or not.

Edit: Break even point might be more around $6 for 2015 because there were a lot of one time costs in 2014.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2015, 17:46 by charged »


No Free Lunch

« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2015, 17:49 »
+1
What is everyone's break even point on a per file basis? No doubt it is different for everyone. I was trying to work it out on a spreadsheet today. If I looked at my expenses for 2014, I need every file that I upload to earn around $10 before I can break even on my costs. This does not count whatever my own time is worth. It does count studio rent, equipment purchase, props, travel, models, etc. Probably like many other contributors, most of my files never sell once, so which means the ones do sell need to work much harder to help me reach overall break even point.

As an iStock exclusive, it definitely concerns me that I might not be able to break even on newer work, because the sales keep disappearing. Overall I'm still profitable, largely because files from previous years still sell. But it is definitely important to me that all new files pull their own weight and pay for themselves over time. Too bad it will take a number of years before I find out if recently uploaded files are successful or not.

Edit: Break even point might be more around $6 for 2015 because there were a lot of one time costs in 2014.


Here are few free templates for doing a break even analysis-

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/templates/break-even-analysis-TC001017515.aspx

« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2015, 17:59 »
0
Thanks!

« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2015, 16:23 »
+4
like RPI, a breakeven analysis is usually going to be GIGO -- especially with images where it's nigh impossible to estimate any one image's return.   breakeven on a per file basis doesn't make a lot of sense -- are you counting images captured?  selected? submitted to agencies? or accepted by agencies?   the diference may be several orders of magnitude


keep it simple -- take your expenses for the year (or longer) and compare them to your total income.  basically that's also the number you'd report to the IRS (in US)

if the number is consistently negative over several years , you need to examine why you're doing this.   for many, major income may not be the only reason to stay in the game.


for me, as long as my photo income covers most of my travel expenses, my business is successful (and that's been the case  since 2009)

« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2015, 17:35 »
+4
I also use microstockanalytics software to see how the new images are earnings.  You might think that you are still turning a profit from shooting because overall the numbers are in the black.. but really it is the old shoots which are paying for the new shoots and the new shoots never pay for themselves.  I'm not saying that is the case, but it is wise to make certain.

« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2015, 19:09 »
+6
I can't imagine someone entering micro today and having to break even.
My cost per image is $ 0.00. I don't work with people and would do my travels anyway.

« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2015, 07:43 »
0
Working with models, I pay them roughly 17.5 USD per hour. I usually shoot with another friend of mine, and we run for 2 hours. The model will thus earn 35 USD for 2 hours.

During these 2 hours, I end up with around AT LEAST 15-20 usable stock files, that are also accepted by all agencies. Often more.

Calculating pessimistic, let's say 15 are accepted; this means I have to be able to earn 1.17 USD per image, in average - combined for all agencies. I'm on 12 agencies now, so this means I have to make 0.098 USD per image per agency, in order to break even.

I think it's safe to say I can break even; but it takes quite some time before my own hourly wage is at an acceptable level; even in more optimistic cases.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2015, 07:47 »
+2
Working with models, I pay them roughly 17.5 USD per hour. I usually shoot with another friend of mine, and we run for 2 hours. The model will thus earn 35 USD for 2 hours.

During these 2 hours, I end up with around AT LEAST 15-20 usable stock files, that are also accepted by all agencies. Often more.

Calculating pessimistic, let's say 15 are accepted; this means I have to be able to earn 1.17 USD per image, in average - combined for all agencies. I'm on 12 agencies now, so this means I have to make 0.098 USD per image per agency, in order to break even.

I think it's safe to say I can break even; but it takes quite some time before my own hourly wage is at an acceptable level; even in more optimistic cases.

What about your other cost? Studio rent, equipment rent, equipment purchase, travel cost, utilities, etc etc. You need to factor in all cost, not just the cost for a model.

« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2015, 09:11 »
0
On May 1st I'll be going to Japan for 16 days to shoot stock...I wonder if I'll ever cover the theoretical cost of this trip...especially when a car for the first 10 days costs 970 USD !!! And the flight is another 1100.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No Free Lunch

« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2015, 09:20 »
0
On May 1st I'll be going to Japan for 16 days to shoot stock...I wonder if I'll ever cover the theoretical cost of this trip...especially when a car for the first 10 days costs 970 USD !!! And the flight is another 1100.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most likely not but as long as your overall income exceeds your expenses for the year you are good to go!

« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2015, 09:23 »
+1
On May 1st I'll be going to Japan for 16 days to shoot stock...I wonder if I'll ever cover the theoretical cost of this trip...especially when a car for the first 10 days costs 970 USD !!! And the flight is another 1100.

One would hope that if you're really going to "shoot stock", then you've planned out your shoots, locations, costs, etc., and have an idea of whether they'll pay off.  If you're just going on vacation, and are going to shoot travel snaps to put on SS, well, then ...

« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2015, 09:27 »
+2
I can't imagine someone entering micro today and having to break even.
My cost per image is $ 0.00. I don't work with people and would do my travels anyway.
You've never bought anything because of shooting stock? No new camera or lens, no new (or better) computer or software program, no bus ticket to go a bit further because there is a photo op just outside the place you were travelling to? I find that hard to believe of anybody on this site.

Semmick Photo

« Reply #12 on: April 09, 2015, 09:32 »
0
On May 1st I'll be going to Japan for 16 days to shoot stock...I wonder if I'll ever cover the theoretical cost of this trip...especially when a car for the first 10 days costs 970 USD !!! And the flight is another 1100.

One would hope that if you're really going to "shoot stock", then you've planned out your shoots, locations, costs, etc., and have an idea of whether they'll pay off.  If you're just going on vacation, and are going to shoot travel snaps to put on SS, well, then ...

I dont understand the difference between a stock photo and a snapshot. If someone plans a photoshoot of the Chicago skyline at sunrise and works it all out beforehand, its a stock photo. If I walk in at the same moment on my holiday and take the same photo its a snapshot. I made over $2000 dollar with my snapshots of Chicago. My best seller of Chicago skyline was taken drunken when on a riverboat tour. LOL. Sold over 1000 copies.

Stock photo or snapshot, if the photo is good, its good. IMO.

« Reply #13 on: April 09, 2015, 09:41 »
+2
Stock photo or snapshot, if the photo is good, its good. IMO.

Yes, but that's not really what I said.  A trip to "shoot stock" has arrangements made for access to saleable things, models booked, property releases for locations arranged, transportation secured at sunrise to amazing spots, etc., any and all of the above with the intent of creating lots of usable images that will pay back.  A vacation where you might get some usable snaps as you go about your travels that are unplanned is more of a crapshoot.

I went down to Bonaire in March.  I don't usually shoot for business when on vacation because I don't want to bother my family or take up vacation time.  But a few days before we left I decided to take a couple of hours to do a planned shoot with a paid model at a secured location.  For the costs paid, I'm pretty sure it will pay off.

Anyways, just making chit chat.  No need to go in depth.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2015, 09:45 by Sean Locke Photography »

« Reply #14 on: April 09, 2015, 10:25 »
0
I've been doing research for a month now about anything between Tokyo - Kyoto, and checked what the major agencies have from these locations. Tokyo is super well covered but I guess I'll add my share (both video and stills).

And...the original post says "theoretical costs" cause I don't pay for it and I have a one hour "meeting" every 100km from Kyoto to Tokyo at the end of each day...the rest of the time is all free for shooting, hope it goes well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Semmick Photo

« Reply #15 on: April 09, 2015, 10:48 »
0
Stock photo or snapshot, if the photo is good, its good. IMO.

Yes, but that's not really what I said.  A trip to "shoot stock" has arrangements made for access to saleable things, models booked, property releases for locations arranged, transportation secured at sunrise to amazing spots, etc., any and all of the above with the intent of creating lots of usable images that will pay back.  A vacation where you might get some usable snaps as you go about your travels that are unplanned is more of a crapshoot.

I went down to Bonaire in March.  I don't usually shoot for business when on vacation because I don't want to bother my family or take up vacation time.  But a few days before we left I decided to take a couple of hours to do a planned shoot with a paid model at a secured location.  For the costs paid, I'm pretty sure it will pay off.

Anyways, just making chit chat.  No need to go in depth.
ok makes sense. Thanks for explaining. Must be one of your  longest post or close to it. I don't mind the chit-chat  ;)

« Reply #16 on: April 09, 2015, 11:01 »
0
I can't imagine someone entering micro today and having to break even.
My cost per image is $ 0.00. I don't work with people and would do my travels anyway.
You've never bought anything because of shooting stock? No new camera or lens, no new (or better) computer or software program, no bus ticket to go a bit further because there is a photo op just outside the place you were travelling to? I find that hard to believe of anybody on this site.

Well I did buy a new camera for stock, but it was about time to replace my old one anyway.
I believe the real investment here is time. A lot of it.

« Reply #17 on: April 09, 2015, 12:10 »
0
Semmick Photo >

Quote
What about your other cost? Studio rent, equipment rent, equipment purchase, travel cost, utilities, etc etc. You need to factor in all cost, not just the cost for a model.

I do not factor in much of this in stock; as I'm already factoring these things in to my paid sessions. I'm not a professional stock photographer; I'm a freelance photographer first, and stock photographer second. So I have the equipment anyway, and use stock to .... hmmm mostly because it's funny.

I usually don't rent anything, and being an ambassador, my newer camera equipment was for free. But I definitely see your point.

But it'd be a very complicated calculation; and I'm not sure that Charged meant we should go so precise, in his initial post...? I may be wrong though. :)

« Reply #18 on: April 09, 2015, 13:13 »
0
My basic camera and computer, insurance, advertising, etc. costs are what I would spend anyway for the assignment work I do but when I buy props or other special items for a trip or take a trip specifically to shoot stock (or stay a few days after a family vacation to shoot stock) I make a contact sheet (or several) of the photos that are online for each shoot or location and keep track of what I make over time by shoot so I have a better sense of what is paying off, how long it's taking me to recoup those costs, etc. - I break it down by photo and by agency/direct licenses as well, but to determine how I'm doing overall, it makes more sense to look at the overall shoot.

Since I do a lot of travel photography, I also compare how older photos from a location I've visited more than once are doing compared to newer ones, and how I'm doing with those photos year over year to see how well they are still selling, so I can analyze whether it makes sense to return to shoot new stock there again and even what types of images sell best from similar locations as I plan new shoots.

Since I license macrostock as well as microstock and also sell fine art prints, a trip where I drove and spent a few nights in a hotel can pay for itself very quickly, but I break out how shots on the micros are doing separately too which helps me analyze where to place my photos.

A trip to Europe may take some years to pay for itself and start making me a profit while one taken to to the Jersey Shore or somewhere in New England from my home in New York will usually hit the break-even point the same year, and if I'm lucky enough to stay with friends (a few of whom are happy to tag along and even model while I shoot or are happy to meet me after sunset after we've both put in a full day working) I'll break even very quickly. My best was a trip to Baltimore and Annapolis to shoot stock - I sold two prints to a hospital a few months after I got back and it totally covered the cost. Since then, a handful of shots sell regularly for me on Alamy and a couple of others on SS so it's pure profit. My trip to Europe in 2011 is still in the red though I signed with a small German agency right afterwards hoping that would be a good outlet for images from Sweden, Russia, Estonia and Iceland but they seem to do better with my US-based work. Stock can have a steep learning curve and the market is always changing.

Even when I travel with family, I try to set aside time to shoot and carefully plan out my days. I've also gotten lucky with seat of the pants snapshots selling well, but long-term careful planning is key.


« Reply #19 on: April 09, 2015, 21:51 »
0
I made over $2000 dollar with my snapshots of Chicago. My best seller of Chicago skyline was taken drunken when on a riverboat tour. LOL. Sold over 1000 copies.

Stock photo or snapshot, if the photo is good, its good. IMO.

I tend to travel and feel like the camera is a burden around my neck and I'm too much of a snob to take shots with my phone.  When I do grab some "snapshots", toss a couple on stock sites - then one shot makes and easy $600 - $1200 bucks or so I definitely get pretty frustrated... why didn't I take 20 more?  20 per day?  I'm taking my camera next time!  It seems like those vacation snapshots just keep on selling as well...  slow and steady...

« Reply #20 on: April 09, 2015, 22:20 »
0
my microstock works are almost zero cost to very little eg apple on white etc
things i would eat anyway.
my best earning number in history was one of my worst experience in life...
something i would not wish anyone, esp myself.
but the images earned me the highest amount ever.
sort of like blessing in disguise, or as though fate tries to make up for causing havoc to you.

i used to think travel shots earn good money, but i think after the past years when suddenly everyone who is living in those parts you visited submitted their own stuff,
and did better than you do, since they can sit there to wait for the best time and lighting
unlike you were when you were on tour...

all in all food is still the best to shoot for microstock. you can't go wrong with food,
even if you don't make any money, you already reward yourself with some food you would not eat if you do not shoot out as expenses to earning money for stock  ;D

« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2015, 02:34 »
+1
I'd do more pictures of fish but its sole destroying :'(

« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2015, 03:17 »
0
all in all food is still the best to shoot for microstock. you can't go wrong with food,
even if you don't make any money, you already reward yourself with some food you would not eat

Absolutely - and it also saves money if you cook everything yourself, as I do. I've learned a fantastic amount about cooking in the last 10 years and I frequently turn out posh restaurant-type meals for the price of a McD "happy meal". A lot of things don't get shot, though; for if a recipe is too complicated and little-known it probably isn't going to attract much buyer interest.

shudderstok

« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2015, 09:11 »
0

I dont understand the difference between a stock photo and a snapshot.
[/quote]

the difference is between making a reliable income or not. believe it or not, before microstock there was a huge difference, and i still think there is.

« Reply #24 on: April 10, 2015, 11:02 »
+1
all in all food is still the best to shoot for microstock. you can't go wrong with food,
even if you don't make any money, you already reward yourself with some food you would not eat

Absolutely - and it also saves money if you cook everything yourself, as I do. I've learned a fantastic amount about cooking in the last 10 years and I frequently turn out posh restaurant-type meals for the price of a McD "happy meal". A lot of things don't get shot, though; for if a recipe is too complicated and little-known it probably isn't going to attract much buyer interest.

so right BT,
the more generic food the more downloads.
i find that it is futile trying to be too clever as a home-economist as many food recipe wine guide etc will not use stock photos due as they have their own photo dept much like luxury cars
will not look to stock photos.
which in a way is better for you and me as we do not have to use much of our grey matter to make food shots esp for the money we get... why think at all..
just shoot and eat :D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
23 Replies
9382 Views
Last post June 15, 2009, 13:08
by pieman
45 Replies
18088 Views
Last post June 30, 2012, 19:08
by oxman
14 Replies
11275 Views
Last post October 08, 2012, 11:23
by RacePhoto
9 Replies
4370 Views
Last post July 26, 2015, 10:04
by ChrisGardinerPhotography
24 Replies
8811 Views
Last post June 24, 2019, 01:22
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors