Author Topic: Are things going well in microstock? (Read 129587 times)

le_cyclope · « **Reply #275 on:** January 16, 2008, 12:25 »

Quote from: Aurelio on January 16, 2008, 11:08

Istock has biggest price for images but still they have more buyers than any other micro. I think there is a lot space for price to rise

This is a very good point.

We've red a lot of interresting points of view in this thread but I' m surprised that few people care about the low selling prices in microstock. I mean that MS has gain a great level of maturity and as any other business, it has created his niche and has developed a market.

Now that the costumers are there, it is time IMO to raise the selling prices. No matter how much is the commission (% or subscription), if the prices get higher, we will have more money, obviously.

I think that IS is going that way. And I think that any site that does not follow that trend is bad for us. No matter if a site is based on a subscription model or a per download, this is what we have to watch... and put pressure on those who will not follow the rising trend on sell prices.

Claude

leaf · « **Reply #276 on:** January 16, 2008, 13:19 »

Quote from: ParisEye on January 16, 2008, 12:05

There is an interesting article about pricing and micro by Dan Heller ; here is the link :

The myth that microstock agencies hurt stock photo pricing

http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/myth-that-microstock-agencies-hurt.html

some nice reading. He made quite a few good points - I hope the microstock agencies read that.

madelaide · « **Reply #277 on:** January 16, 2008, 15:40 »

Quote from: leaf on January 16, 2008, 04:07

Quote from: madelaide on January 15, 2008, 17:17
... I never understood why people embrace a subs model like SS just because it sells a lot. Yes, total $ is good, but it is underpaid. You may earn a lot from a single image - more than you might in a macrostock model - but behind this you have buyers accessing images too cheaply.

Regards,
Adelaide

The problem with this argument, as I see it, is that all microstock is VERY underpaid and only makes sense because you can make money on selling in bulk. Wether we are underpaid and only getting $1.00 or underpaid and only getting $.30 cents it is the same ridiculous low amount. That is why what matters to me is the end amount an image makes.

I'm not referring to what we receive, but to what people pay for the images. Subscribers pay too little for what they get (or can get), and that's what I don't accept taking part in.

Regards,
Adelaide

HermanM · « **Reply #278 on:** January 16, 2008, 15:54 »

The problem here is not the low price, but the too low price.

I think that the casual blogger, the casual user, were among the first to use micros for getting their images, but now you see images from all micros showing on websites from corporations and on print ads all over the place. And we still get pennies for it.

Licences are too wide on what the buyer gets and we get the burden of all the legal implications, model releases and everything else associated with the supply of photos. Aesthetic requirements are up, reviewers are more and more strict and the return just does not make it worth to keep uploading photos to most of the sites.

Any serious designer, who really needs an image for a paid work, could easily pay 20 dollars for an image without problems. So I think that the midstock model is the one to embrace and support. I, for the time being, will keep uploading to Alamy, PSC and other agencies that pay more for my work.

pixelbrat · « **Reply #279 on:** January 16, 2008, 15:56 »

Quote from: leaf on January 16, 2008, 13:19

Quote from: ParisEye on January 16, 2008, 12:05
There is an interesting article about pricing and micro by Dan Heller ; here is the link :

The myth that microstock agencies hurt stock photo pricing

http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/myth-that-microstock-agencies-hurt.html

some nice reading. He made quite a few good points - I hope the microstock agencies read that.

Agreed, some very good reading. It sure was an eye-opener for me.

crashoran · « **Reply #280 on:** January 16, 2008, 23:14 »

Have you considered investing the bulk of your earnings once you reach a pinnacle Yuri? I've read you were going to school for another major and were doing this to pay tuition. I don't know your future plans - but the portfolios you have created online are literally a gold mine. Even if one day you retire from microstock to pursue your major, your earnings will still come in each month - and all you need to do is reinvest everything. As time passes your investment dividends will keep multiplying. By the time you reach your 40's or 50's, you will be financially set for life.

Like I said I don't know what your future plans are, but I've started to invest early. It's amazing to see an initial $10,000 USD investment grow to over 60 million dollars over 70 years at places like Edward Jones and such.

But, that aside, if your passion is to continue microstock photography - go for it

Sorry for off-topic :\

Yuri Arcurs
Freezingpictures (558)
GeoPappas
Smithore (596)
rene
sharpshot (2756)
ldambies
epixx
latex
FlemishDreams.
RTimages
Vonkara
helix7
Travelling-light
Mjp (994)
northflyboy
ason
sorsillo (538)
boatman
Alex
Eco
Rozmaryna (68)
Pixelbrat
Read_My_Rights (277)
vphoto
faber (300)
dbvirago
cmcderm1
boryak
HughStoneIan
digiology
moori
pixart
fauxware
rosendo (313)
Lukasphoto
aremafoto (2147)
IKOphotos (1842)
Kiya
erwinova
Velvia
DanP68
Jorgeinthewater
digitalfood
nativelight (195-StockXpert & 213-SV)
ljupco (1920)
fotomy
Batman2000
stokfoto
khz
techno (2057)
Aurelio (2426)
Mshake (860)
Pierdelune
Crashoran

josh_crestock · « **Reply #281 on:** January 17, 2008, 08:30 »

Quote from: ParisEye on January 16, 2008, 12:05

There is an interesting article about pricing and micro by Dan Heller ; here is the link :

The myth that microstock agencies hurt stock photo pricing

http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/myth-that-microstock-agencies-hurt.html

This is doing the rounds here at Crestock. Thanks a lot for this, its essential reading for everyone.

Michael · « **Reply #282 on:** January 17, 2008, 11:55 »

Quote from: HermanM on January 16, 2008, 15:54

The problem here is not the low price, but the too low price.

I think that the casual blogger, the casual user, were among the first to use micros for getting their images, but now you see images from all micros showing on websites from corporations and on print ads all over the place. And we still get pennies for it.

Licences are too wide on what the buyer gets and we get the burden of all the legal implications, model releases and everything else associated with the supply of photos. Aesthetic requirements are up, reviewers are more and more strict and the return just does not make it worth to keep uploading photos to most of the sites.

Any serious designer, who really needs an image for a paid work, could easily pay 20 dollars for an image without problems. So I think that the midstock model is the one to embrace and support. I, for the time being, will keep uploading to Alamy, PSC and other agencies that pay more for my work.

Right! For me as an freelancer the microstocks are a gold mine. I can take photos for 1.- $, put then in my work and get 50-200.- $ for every single photo in the end. The microstockphotographers spend a lot of money to designers, journalists and other freelancers. In the other hand, the prices of macrostocks are to high for freelancer-work. So i look at the actually photo-market-advancement with to different eyes and hope that in the end the prices find a "middle-way"...

leaf · « **Reply #283 on:** January 19, 2008, 05:19 »

If you are wondering where the discussion about the stock market went - it is now in a new thread

LINK HERE

sharply_done · « **Reply #284 on:** January 19, 2008, 07:17 »

Quote from: ichiro17 on January 18, 2008, 19:21

...
Back to microstock, I'm enjoying the new hike in prices at iStock. Big-ups to management and I am seriously starting to consider an exclusiveness there once I go silver. Hip hip houray!

Hmmm ... wasn't it hatman who said that exclusives at IS would enjoy the biggest gains in 2008? I think he was called crazy for that opinion, too.

I'm getting very tired of submitting to multiple sites that provide low returns, and SS - the only other site that provides high return - has lately been giving me all sorts of crazy rejections. I originally planned to go exclusive at IS after I hit diamond, but I'm now considering making the jump when I hit gold next month. If the current prices keep up, I'll be averaging $1.90+ per DL ... can't beat that!

sharpshot · « **Reply #285 on:** January 19, 2008, 07:52 »

You can beat $1.90 per download for RF with FP, LO, SV, Alamy, and lots of other sites that you can't upload RF to if you are exclusive with istock.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #286 on:** January 19, 2008, 09:05 »

Quote from: sharply_done on January 19, 2008, 07:17

I'm getting very tired of submitting to multiple sites that provide low returns, and SS - the only other site that provides high return - has lately been giving me all sorts of crazy rejections. I originally planned to go exclusive at IS after I hit diamond, but I'm now considering making the jump when I hit gold next month. If the current prices keep up, I'll be averaging $1.90+ per DL ... can't beat that!

I'm thinking the same thing. Just like you said I'm getting tired of all of the other sites and their low earnings and quirkiness. The returns are little to nothing and I feel that time could be used more effectively where I'm seeing growth and potential. IS and SS are over 80% of my earnings. But... even after I had an EL at SS this month (SS is doing really well for me) IS is still beating SS for earnings. If IS keeps up like it has it could be 60-70% of my earnings within the next month or two. I'm re-evaluating my thoughts on exclusivity.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #287 on:** January 19, 2008, 09:14 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 19, 2008, 07:52

You can beat $1.90 per download for RF with FP, LO, SV, Alamy, and lots of other sites that you can't upload RF to if you are exclusive with istock.

You could still upload RM to Alamy, but not RF. And yes, you might be able to hit $1.90 per download at FP, LO, and SV but how many downloads would you get per month? A handful total combined? Is it really be worth all of the extra time and effort to earn a extra few dollars? Looking at my earnings spreadsheet, the answer is increasingly looking like no, it's not worth it. I'm thinking I'd rather use that time to start building an RM portfolio with Alamy and Photoshelter.

sharpshot · « **Reply #288 on:** January 19, 2008, 09:43 »

I am going to upload a lot of RF to Alamy and other higher paying sites this year. From what I have read on the Alamy forums, the earnings can be good.

My situation is different as istock makes up a low percentage of my earnings, around 15-30%, probably because they have rejected lots of my best selling photos and illustrations, so it isn't worth sacrificing RF earnings from all the other sites.

One of their best match search changes halved my sales last year and that would have been a disaster if I had been exclusive there, so I doubt I would do it even if their earnings were higher.

rene · « **Reply #289 on:** January 19, 2008, 09:55 »

I agree with Nazdravie. My numbers are the same (IS + SS 80% of my earnings). I think that uploading to 123, LO, BigStock is only waste of time. At DT I have more and more subscription downloads and I hate it. FT and StockXpert give me about 40-50 $ a month each so I can live without. Only IS and SS work for me. The problem with SS is that I have to upload new images all the time and I'm tired to produce all the time the same kind of cheap crap. I would love to spend more time (and money) to do same intersting projects. But with SS I will never get my money back. 5-6 good images with 200-300 dls each will give me 500$ first month then earning drop very very fast. IS system works much better for me. Maybe uploading RF only to IS and start to build good quality portfolio at RM sites is the best choice.

Travelling-light · « **Reply #290 on:** January 19, 2008, 10:04 »

Yes, same for us. I've always thought we would never go exclusive on IS, too risky, all eggs in one basket etc.

But when you look at how far behind the payout for subscription now is, and all the competiton between the sites, using *our* photos, you have to think about it.

By my calculations, the payout for subscription would have to go to at least 50 cents this year to keep up. I can't see that happening.

The sites all look at their own bottom lines individually, we (photographers) look at our overall total income, and the two aren't compatible.

We can't do anything for 6 months due to DT's lock in, but that will give time to think about it and see what happens.

Linda

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #291 on:** January 19, 2008, 10:35 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 19, 2008, 09:43

I am going to upload a lot of RF to Alamy and other higher paying sites this year. From what I have read on the Alamy forums, the earnings can be good.

My situation is different as istock makes up a low percentage of my earnings, around 15-30%, probably because they have rejected lots of my best selling photos and illustrations, so it isn't worth sacrificing RF earnings from all the other sites.

One of their best match search changes halved my sales last year and that would have been a disaster if I had been exclusive there, so I doubt I would do it even if their earnings were higher.

It's really interesting how diffferent sites have different earning levels for everybody. IS and SS are rocking for me. DT and FT are doing okay. StockXpert and SV are showing potential. The rest are pretty low.

Earnings at Alamy can be good (they claim average of $16 p/i/p/y) but I was surprised to see figures that on average traditional stock photographers make $1 per image in their portfolio per year. At first I thought "that's about the same as microstock". But wait a minute. That's per year, not per month! That's 8 cents per month, where micros seem to be 50 cents to $1 for most people here. If I calculate my earnings based upon this month, I'm at about $25 per image per year with micros. So I'd guess the chances of making comparable earnings at Alamy today aren't realistic, unless you're a superstar. What I do see with Alamy is a higher price structure, very strong and consistent revenue growth, different buyers, and a very impressive management team. So over the next few years as they continue fine-tuning, I'm thinking Alamy will be a much stronger player with higher average earning potential. I like what I see.

sharpshot · « **Reply #292 on:** January 19, 2008, 11:58 »

I suppose that is an average of all contributors. I wonder what the average would be for the top 20%? People can make $1 per image per month with microstock but I would think the top 20% make most of the money and the average for all contributors might be much lower.

HermanM · « **Reply #293 on:** January 20, 2008, 23:59 »

Quote from: Nazdravie on January 19, 2008, 10:35

where micros seem to be 50 cents to $1 for most people here

This is not a realistic number... It's been discussed that on certain portfolios you will make $1-2/image/year. In previous discussions it was discussed that in the long run a micro portfolio could match or even earn more than that. In reality, it varies. If it was a standard then everybody would be making hundreds of dollars per month, even thousands... In every portfolio there is about a 20% of images that make 80% of your income. I sincerely doubt that most portfolios could earn the $25 per year per photo, maybe there is one or two out there, but the real earning per photo per year is more an assumption than a real figure available for analysis.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #294 on:** January 21, 2008, 00:36 »

This is not a realistic number according to whom/what? I've been around here long enough to see feedback over and over again that on average a microstocker will earn $.50 to $1.00 per portfolio image per month accross multiple sites.

So, according to this, figure a 500 image portfolio should earn $250 to 500 per month, or $3,000 to $6,000 per year, on average.

Sure, there will be some photos that sell like crazy and others that don't. The measurement is average income per image based upon total portfolio.

If I misunderstood this info, than I'd love to see some some stats of more realistic numbers.

sharpshot · « **Reply #295 on:** January 21, 2008, 01:39 »

I have seen people say many times that a reasonably good contributor can make $1 per image per month but what about all the mediocre ones? There are a large amount of portfolios that I am sure don't reach this level and that might bring down the average for an entire site.

There are 2,947,634 images and 87,051 contributors on shutterstock, so the average portfolio size is just 34 images. How many of these people make $1 per image per month? I think a lot of them make much less and lose the motivation to build a bigger portfolio.

andresr · « **Reply #296 on:** January 21, 2008, 07:20 »

$1 per photo PER MONTH is the AVERAGE income in microstock when you submit to the big 7 and you have a portfolio of more than 200 photos.

Top earners earn between $3-6 dollars per photo per month.

It's a fact, I am not making the numbers up.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #297 on:** January 21, 2008, 07:27 »

Take a look over here: http://www.microstockgroup.com/index.php?topic=2387.msg20331#msg20331

grp_photo · « **Reply #298 on:** January 21, 2008, 13:30 »

Quote from: ParisEye on January 16, 2008, 12:05

There is an interesting article about pricing and micro by Dan Heller ; here is the link :

The myth that microstock agencies hurt stock photo pricing

http://www.danheller.com/blog/posts/myth-that-microstock-agencies-hurt.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/21/business/21getty.php

Ineresting quote from that article:
"Getty's stock has plunged 49 percent over the past year. In August, the company lowered its full-year profit estimates because of competition from low-cost rivals."

grp_photo · « **Reply #299 on:** January 21, 2008, 13:34 »

Quote from: andresr on January 21, 2008, 07:20

$1 per photo PER MONTH is the AVERAGE income in microstock when you submit to the big 7 and you have a portfolio of more than 200 photos.

Top earners earn between $3-6 dollars per photo per month.

It's a fact, I am not making the numbers up.

It all comes down to individual portfolios no matter we talk about micro macro or whatever. So saying the average for micro is that xx amount and the average of macro is this xx amount is pretty senseless.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Are things going well in microstock? (Read 129587 times)

le_cyclope

leaf

madelaide

HermanM

pixelbrat

crashoran

josh_crestock

Michael

leaf

sharply_done

sharpshot

PaulieWalnuts

PaulieWalnuts

sharpshot

rene

Travelling-light

PaulieWalnuts

sharpshot

HermanM

PaulieWalnuts

sharpshot

andresr

Freezingpictures

grp_photo

grp_photo

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors