MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: Freezingpictures on September 03, 2007, 03:52
-
Ok here is a new poll. I thought it would be interesting how much the average microstocker would make /image/month. I have no idea, only that it is assumed that the actual number should be between $1-$2, so I made the range pretty wide.
Here is the way you calculate it: Go to for example Istock, look at your numbers and divide the income of August by the number of your images. Example: $200 income in August, your portfolio there: 100 images. $200/ 100 = $2. You do the same for the other agencies. (We should limit it to the Big 6). Lets assume you have 2$ for IS and $0.25 at DT.
Then you calculate them together: $2+$0.25=$2.25. So your average $/image/month would be $2.25 if you have images only at DT and IS. Do not hesitate to take part, because you think you are well below the average or above. It will help us to see where we are, if we are doing well or if we should improve.
Thanks!
-
For a major update of my article (27 pages :o) about microstocks I've been making some new graphs. This is one of them :
(http://www.pbase.com/perrush/image/84951987/original.jpg)
-
Given how much higher sales prices are on IS, I think there's a pretty good chance that this survey may turn out to be indicative of how well people are doing on IS.
-
>Given how much higher sales prices are on IS...
????
perhaps i don't understand,but for me, on average, Dreamstime & StockXpert give me more /photo then istock
-
Wow, I am really doing bad. I am reading this as income per photo online. Not income per photo sold. This is correct, right?
Overall, I average around .75 per month per photo that I have online. What can I do to get it to the $1- $2 range?
-
What can I do to get it to the $1- $2 range?
't is called ... quality (for the main part I guess) or maybe better : suited for stock
-
Wow, I am really doing bad. I am reading this as income per photo online. Not income per photo sold. This is correct, right?
Overall, I average around .75 per month per photo that I have online. What can I do to get it to the $1- $2 range?
Like I said earlier, the number you get using this formula is overly sensitive to how well you are doing on IS. What this number possibly says is that your 400+ sales on IS for 150+ images is less-than-average performance.
-
What this number possibly says is that your 400+ sales on IS for 150+ images is less-than-average performance.
Any ideas why my istock performance is poor? I think my technical quality is ok. If it was not the photos would not be accepted. I think my keywords are ok. So I assume that it is the subjects and/or compositions not being the best suited for stock.
I sure would appreciate any comments, tips, or opinions.
-
Any ideas why my istock performance is poor? I think my technical quality is ok. If it was not the photos would not be accepted. I think my keywords are ok. So I assume that it is the subjects and/or compositions not being the best suited for stock.
I sure would appreciate any comments, tips, or opinions.
A quick look at things shows that your IS keywording definitely NOT okay.
The keywording system at IS can really help you sell images there, but you must take the time to learn it well. You absolutely CANNOT have it translate your normal keywords - doing that results in an image of chocolate chip cookies having keywords like "chef", "gambling chips", "junk ships", "potato chips", and "obsolete".
-
Holy Cow! I never noticed that. Thank You!
I think my photos prior to disambiguation that were auto-disambiguated must be all screwed up. I check each submissions keywords carefully now but the ones that were auto-disambiguated have problems.
This is going to be a very time consuming task.
Thanks for feedback!
-
I'm quite embarassed. My average is 0.45, but I clicked on <0.25, can I change it?
Regards,
Adelaide
-
Adelaide, no you cannot change it and i cannot either, maybe Leaf can.
I am probably not better, when I look at the image which have no penguins or iceberg in it..
Definetely need to improve.
-
I'm quite embarassed. My average is 0.45, but I clicked on <0.25, can I change it?
Regards,
Adelaide
now you can change your vote.
-
Thanks, Leaf, I've corrected my mistake.
Someone with over $5, wow! :o
Regards,
Adelaide
-
Here is the way you calculate it: Go to for example Istock, look at your numbers and divide the income of August by the number of your images. Example: $200 income in August, your portfolio there: 100 images. $200/ 100 = $2. You do the same for the other agencies. (We should limit it to the Big 6). Lets assume you have 2$ for IS and $0.25 at DT.
Then you calculate them together: $2+$0.25=$2.25. So your average $/image/month would be $2.25 if you have images only at DT and IS.
I do not really agree with this calculation, especially if you upload all your photos to all agencies.
Your effort is represented by the total number of photos. Therefore the maximum number of photos approved should be the basis (on whichever site that is, most likely FL or BS). Or even the number of photos submitted if available.
So I would calculate: “total monthly income from MicroStock” / Max of approved photos per site.
Guess that would decrease the numbers as it considers rejection rates.
Just my 2ct. ;-)
-
Hi,
I've entered mine... a slim 0.504$. Hopefully next month will be better :)
-
t_rust, I agree. If you have overlap on sites (which I assume) then the way it's being calculated here would inflate actual numbers. Example:
Suppose you had 5 photos that have the exact same earning potential and you submit them to two agencies. Now assume that both agencies only except 4 of the photos, and the one that wasn't excepted was excepted on the other site (and vice-versa). If each site earns $2 dollars per month that means each site has an average of $0.50 per photo. By the calculations that people are using here that means that your $/image/month would be $1 (.50 + .50). But you actually have 5 images available, so you're true average is $4/5 = $0.80.
The way it is being calculated now doesn't actually allow for good comparisons between people because it is dependant on how many sites you're on, and how much overlap you have. If people use a true average then people can get an accurate read against other people no matter how many sites and overlap each person has.
-
Ying Yang and trust, I agree with both of you. The numbers represented in the poll are not perfect, but they do give us some interesting data. There might be better ways to compare, but you need to keep in mind that the simpler the poll the more people will participate.
Not all photographers upload all photos to all agencies. I for example have much less photos at BS then at even IS. (I actually was shocked after I calculated the $/image/month at BS. Just 3 cents.) So definetely the data is not perfect, but for me interesting non the less.
-
Although the number may not be a true representation of earnings, I think the survey has some validity - assuming that everyone read and used the same rules to compute their number, it's probably okay to draw conclusions as to how your portfolio performs in comparison with others.
I'd like to know who the freaky $5+ person is so that I might have a chance to look his/her stuff over!
-
yeah.. that means they are making $1,000/month on 200 images.
-
yeah.. that means they are making $1,000/month on 200 images.
... or their math is not very good.... :)
Just kidding, of course... but it's a very good ratio indeed
I also agree that this method is not very consensual, but it's just one way of calculating... what makes things a bit harder to come up with a "sure thing" formula, is that normally people's portfolios are always expanding so, you have photos there for a few days and others for months or even years. Naturally that a pic that has been uploaded last month and has earned, say 5$ can yield something like 100 $ or more in 3 years, so it's a bit unfair to calculate this way... but i just don't see a way where some problem like this doesn't happen.
Regards
Francisco Leitão
-
yeah.. that means they are making $1,000/month on 200 images.
Reverse-enginerring the calculation, the 5 $/image/month might be broken up something like $2.50 at IS, $1 at SS, $1.50 all other sources. It's also most likely that IS holds at most about half of what the others hold, so that $2.5 becomes $1.25, which makes the total "only" 3.75 $/image/month - still a whomping big number, and about 4x what mine is!
-
It's also most likely that IS holds at most about half of what the others hold
Why do you always say that ? We know that for most IS makes only around 30% of their income. So $/image would be around 30% either.
And now I hear you say "but most have less image in their portfolio"
So what. Haven't you put effort in those rejected images either ? for me those rejection have to be included into the calculation. That are just images making you 0$/month.
Otherwise I just pull all my bad selling images from one site (or only submit top images) to have a good $/image ratio. Than I can say : "Wauuuw that site really sells good)
-
yeah i sort of agree with perrush.
My $/image/month takes into account that i have X number of images. if only X/2 made it onto istock that means that half of my images are making $0 / month
But back to sharplys argument. For the images that DO get on istock - they make the most per image.
-
Wow, I just tried the calc, I thought for sure my number was in the lowest possible grouping since I just started and don’t have a lot of images on all the sites, and the number of images per site widely varies.
So my $/image based on the calc is: $0.59, over three sites (IS, Dreamstime, and FT).
This seems high to me knowing what I actually made. Because if you multiply the $0.59 by the total number of images on those three sites during August you get: $53, which is 4 times the actual number made for the month. If you divide the $0.59 by the number of sites (3) creating an average $/image/site and then multiply the total images the resulting total income is much closer to the actual income. Therefore that average across the sites is a much better indicator, my average $ per image per site is $0.19 (which is right on par with what I expected).
I could easily see how someone with the calc indicated in this thread could make $5/image on shutterstock or istock and not be bringing in all that much on all the sites. Just because most of the income comes from the one site, you can’t automatically multiply that $5 by the number of images at all the sites.
Just for a comparison, since this was calc is based on the microstock diaries column, if you multiply Lee Torren’s total $/image=1.27 by the total images at all sites=3101, then the predicted income would be $3938, almost 8 times the actual income. Granted that includes lots of lower performers. Do the same calc with only the top 6 and the new total $/image=1.15 multiplied by total images on those sites=2442, the predicted total is $2808, still almost 6 times the actual. Showing that this number really doesn’t mean much. Divide the 1.15 by the 6 sites and you have $0.19 per image per site, multiply the $0.19 by the total images on the 6 sites=2442 and the total is $468, much closer to the actual number of $479. While this number is close it still can be very skewed if you have a larger proportion of income at any given site.
I find it interesting that Lee’s number is $0.19 per image per site as is mine. Weird coincidence I think.
Sorry, am a bit into math i guess.....
-
Why do you always say that ? ...
I think you may be misunderstanding my point of view, Perrush. I was merely trying to make sense of such a large $/image figure. $/image means little to me - regardless of the inclusion of non-accepted images or not. The more important thing to me is the bottom line - $ - and I focus all my efforts on maximizing that number.
As far as removing non-selling images goes, that is something I do at the end of every month: all images that haven't sold in 6 months are removed. Why do I do it? Not, as you hint at, so that I can say "Wow, look at my $/image!", but for these two reasons:
1. If/when a potential buyer browses my portfolio he/she will only see images that have at least some commercial value. I've only been at this 8 months, but I plan to remove images that have only sold once per year beginning in January. Sure, I'm losing money doing this, but only a few dollars a year. I'm not terribly interested in producing low-volume images like those ones, which leads nicely into the other reason I kill images ...
2. Removing non-selling images takes only a few hours per month, and I've found it to be a very effective use of my time. The non-sellers are, for the most part, very similar across sites, and it's a very good learning (and sometimes bitter) experience to see first hand what sells well, what occasionally gets a nibble, and what is worthless.
For those of you that don't remove or examine your non-sellers, I highly recommend it. Like the saying goes: those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.