I appreciate the fun in estimates but at the end of the day, it's just completely useless. No one sells the exact same images with the same keywords and results will always be very, very different for each individual.

However, if you're making less than $3 per image per year, you're doing something seriously wrong and need to come up with some changes. That could be OK for ONE site, but in total $5 should absolutely be minimum if you're thinking about this stuff seriously.

why seriously wrong ??  RPI, like the earlier fantasy projections is also a useless stat -- the only meaningful stat is total income from a port -- would you rather have an RPI of $3 on 1000 images or $1 RPI on 4000 images?  as always, there's no simple comparison across portfolios (or even the same portfolio from year to year)

Now the only thing we can argue is my mismanagement of time or assets - I could have invested that time in some other (new) concepts, and keep my RPI (relatively) high, but maybe I would have earned less in total. So it's difficult to say which would have been the better choice.
However, due to a full time job (not related to photos) and supplying higher end materials to macro agencies, I had nothing else to offer to micro. And, given the prices and royalties they offer to us contributors, I'm not sorry about that. You get what you pay for.

In 2017 I'll try with some new concepts (in conjunction with "similars" from these concepts) and see how it goes. Microstock is all about experimenting and feeling the market. And statistics are extremely important in order to analyze batches and optimize your strategy.

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on February 12, 2017, 07:13

I appreciate the fun in estimates but at the end of the day, it's just completely useless. No one sells the exact same images with the same keywords and results will always be very, very different for each individual.

However, if you're making less than $3 per image per year, you're doing something seriously wrong and need to come up with some changes. That could be OK for ONE site, but in total $5 should absolutely be minimum if you're thinking about this stuff seriously.

why seriously wrong ??  RPI, like the earlier fantasy projections is also a useless stat -- the only meaningful stat is total income from a port -- would you rather have an RPI of $3 on 1000 images or $1 RPI on 4000 images?  as always, there's no simple comparison across portfolios (or even the same portfolio from year to year)

Indeed I could increase my RPI dramatically overnight by deleting all my non or low sellers I wouldn't be any richer though.

Quote from: cascoly on February 12, 2017, 14:22

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on February 12, 2017, 07:13

I appreciate the fun in estimates but at the end of the day, it's just completely useless. No one sells the exact same images with the same keywords and results will always be very, very different for each individual.

However, if you're making less than $3 per image per year, you're doing something seriously wrong and need to come up with some changes. That could be OK for ONE site, but in total $5 should absolutely be minimum if you're thinking about this stuff seriously.

why seriously wrong ??  RPI, like the earlier fantasy projections is also a useless stat -- the only meaningful stat is total income from a port -- would you rather have an RPI of $3 on 1000 images or $1 RPI on 4000 images?  as always, there's no simple comparison across portfolios (or even the same portfolio from year to year)

Indeed I could increase my RPI dramatically overnight by deleting all my non or low sellers I wouldn't be any richer though.

i completely agree....in such a word where there are really zillions images, and people can buy cheap and cheaper...rpi doesn't make any sense at all..it was something valuable 15 years ago or 10 in rm or first stock rf...we are growing one million images a week...maybe 10 in some years...
the only things that count is

money.
being a 100% stock right now earning good money  is difficult and difficult.
the only numbers the counts are earning. at the end of month is important cost are covered and earning let you live a good life..but i suspect for 90% of people photo is just a side work to buy some gear.
the only wy to be profitable is producing good content,at low cost.

Hello all,

Does any of you have experience of stopping new uploads to microstocks for good or for a very long time (like years) and then what happens to your sales? In other words, if I build a solid portfolio, and then stop uploading (because I'm tired, have no time, other changes in life etc), will I keep receiving sales? Will they decrease and subsequently stop over time? (assuming other things equal, e.g. performance of the given agency, overall market situation, etc.)

Stock photography was never meant to be a full-time or even part-time job for me; mostly out of curiousity, to make use of hundreds and thousands of my pictures buried on HDDs. However, with less than 1000 photos on each of the top and middle tier agencies, I manage to earn ~$200 each month which is not nothing, and a good extra to upgrade the gear "for free". So I wonder if these sales can continue like this, even if I stop uploading at certain point.

Thanks for your responses!

I stopped uploading a couple of years ago, and I still make payout at Shutterstock. Sometimes it skips a month, but still. I uploaded my port to Fotolia back when Adobe bought them, nothing since, and I make daily sales. Of course you should expect a slowdown, but if you have good images, they will continue to sell.