MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: ribtoks on March 02, 2023, 11:05
-
Hey folks
We teamed with Steve Heap to explore his earnings in more details than anybody before. The goal was to explore his portfolio 'half-life' over at different agencies, however we also made a deep dive into his best-sellers and their impact on earnings.
Check out a new blogpost "How passive is income from microstock photography" https://xpiksapp.com/blog/passive-income-microstock/ (https://xpiksapp.com/blog/passive-income-microstock/)
Really curious what do you think about it and if you agree with conclusions
-
Hey folks
We teamed with Steve Heap to explore his earnings in more details than anybody before. The goal was to explore his portfolio 'half-life' over at different agencies, however we also made a deep dive into his best-sellers and their impact on earnings.
Check out a new blogpost "How passive is income from microstock photography" https://xpiksapp.com/blog/passive-income-microstock/ (https://xpiksapp.com/blog/passive-income-microstock/)
Really curious what do you think about it and if you agree with conclusions
Thank you for the time and effort and thanks to Steve for his long term data and hard work.
"...it’s easy to see that the majority of money actually comes from low and middle-earners, multiplied by large numbers." That and how we usually can't predict what a Good Image actually is in terms of money, when we upload it. Only time tells the truth.
I've had one or two that I suspected would do better than the rest, and I was happy when they did. I also have had some ideas and worked them and, Pffft = nothing. :'(
I don't know that much about the half-life of images, and something that causes images to lose their earnings potential, aside from just plain aging, is competition. If I have one of the best images of something, and there's a demand, then I'll make sales. If after 5 years, instead of 100 images, there are 2,000 competing images, there's more than just age to consider in how an aging image loses it's potential to produce passive income.
Not a bit of disagreement, just saying there are some more factors to consider.
-
Thanks to Steve and your work for this data.
It would be interesting to chop the files count by lifetimes earnings at a finer slice - and then graph the total earnings by # of files - what is the sweet spot - is it really images that make ~80$ each, or more like ~50$ or what?
I still think there are a number of things out of our control that make the difference between a decent seller and a top seller - mostly those are the vagaries of sales and the how the sites decide to display the images. I'm sure Steve has produced more images of his cat and I suspect that some have done well and some not well at all - and as you say - it is hard to impossible to predict which ones will perform better - and the fact that some images do great on only one site suggests that it can be as much the site as the image itself. Still, producing a lot of good content is the most likely way to get decent and top sellers.
I suspect that Steve's top earners from 2020 are due to his recognition of trends - probably mostly around Covid and producing images that met those trends in a timely manner - well done. My facemask images produced early in 2020 didn't go anywhere, but it was a pretty half-hearted effort and I didn't have any old theater marques to play with.
I think timeless images could have a very long 1/2 life especially compared to current trend images - the fall off of sales is more due to how the agencies treat them than the images themselves. Stuff like wildlife and landscapes could age very well - unless the agencies just push them down over time solely based on their age - in which case maybe you should just re-upload everything every 10 or 15 years or once there are no sales after a certain period - in fact this is something that could be done automatically by a program even after you are no longer putting any effort into image production.
My personal best seller at SS had daily sales until one day it didn't - it went from a top line on page one for a one word search to nowhere in the top 10 pages one day and the sales went away too. I think predictions for how sales would be 10 or 20 years out are on very shaky ground. I think with a large enough portfolio sales will go down to some low level and then putter along at that level - until the sites change something or technology like AI images comes along and they go down even lower. We have some historical data for the last 15 years or so, but the changes in the industry over that time are enough that predictions based on that data are pretty suspect.
I think the best seller sales over time graph would be easier to read if the 0 was the bottom line on your graph - not some point in space above it.
I guess the real takeaway is no secret - consistently produce images that meet a need and upload them to a lot of sites and you will get a lot of sales and once you stop producing images sales will fall off - rapidly at first and then more slowly.
-
Really curious what do you think about it and if you agree with conclusions
Thank you for your effort to analyse this.
I can't really say that I agree with the conclusions, though.
You write:
"Looking at how much you can earn, it’s easy to see that the majority of money actually comes from low and middle-earners, multiplied by large numbers. Highest income comes from too few files to hope to make a difference. Even the lowest earning category of Steve’s files that produced as little as $1 for the lifetime (!), multiplied by 1000 of files, multiplied by 10 selling agencies, already produced $10,000."
However, the diagram about the earning per agency and year clearly shows that until 2015, the majority of sales come from just two agencies, Shutterstock and Getty/iStock. In 2017 Adobe Stock joins the club. Only in 2016 the earnings are mor evenly distributed. Also the share of the medium and low earners diminishes over the years, again with the exception of 2016. in 2022, the three leading agencies earned more than three quarters of the overall earnings.
If you get to a different result by multiplying earnings per image with files per category, your calculations must be flawed.
Perhaps due to rounding erros, because the category with images in the category with lifetime earnings of $1 proably also includes images that earned less than $1.
Another confounding factor is probably that most of the images that earned money at the low earners did so in previous years, when it was still easier to sell images. For example you can see in the diagram with the earnings per year and agency that Canva and 123RF used to make decent amounts of money, but do not do this anymore.
-
However, the diagram about the earning per agency and year clearly shows that until 2015, the majority of sales come from just two agencies, Shutterstock and Getty/iStock. In 2017 Adobe Stock joins the club. Only in 2016 the earnings are mor evenly distributed. Also the share of the medium and low earners diminishes over the years, again with the exception of 2016. in 2022, the three leading agencies earned more than three quarters of the overall earnings.
If you get to a different result by multiplying earnings per image with files per category, your calculations must be flawed.
I'm not sure I follow your logic. You are referring to 2 splits of earnings: 1) per agecy per year and 2) per range of earnings per file. Ranges of earnings are like ($0-1, $1-7, ...), but files are of all agencies together. They are sliced too differently, in my opinion, and it seems to me that you're trying to use one for conclusions about the other. Can you try to explain again what do you mean?
-
I think the best seller sales over time graph would be easier to read if the 0 was the bottom line on your graph - not some point in space above it.
I'm sorry, but I cannot get which chart are you referring to? All charts in the best-seller section of the blogpost are per year. If you refer to the chart in the "how much your files can earn", each column is a certain range of earnings (e.g. $0.1-1).
-
I don't know that much about the half-life of images, and something that causes images to lose their earnings potential, aside from just plain aging, is competition.
Yeah, totally.
However, we estimated the half-life of sales exactly, if that makes sense. I believe that sales of the image include all of the factors (ranking changes by agency, competition, becoming out of date etc.).
-
I think the best seller sales over time graph would be easier to read if the 0 was the bottom line on your graph - not some point in space above it.
I'm sorry, but I cannot get which chart are you referring to? All charts in the best-seller section of the blogpost are per year. If you refer to the chart in the "how much your files can earn", each column is a certain range of earnings (e.g. $0.1-1).
the 30 day moving average graph for the cat pic
-
the 30 day moving average graph for the cat pic
Oh, now I see it. I agree, point taken.
-
A large Portfolio and lots of agencies flatten the RPI curve. So the monthly graph of the cat image is not important at all.
There are always images that sell better. But not all at the same time. Even without the best seller cat image in Steves portfolio, there would not be much difference in overall earnings of such a long time.
-
A large Portfolio and lots of agencies flatten the RPI curve. So the monthly graph of the cat image is not important at all.
There's not a single RPI chart in the blogpost (if by RPI you mean "return per image"). Monthly graph of the cat image is used to show that, when approximated with a line, earnings are reducing.
What do you mean by "this chart is not important at all"? "At all" for which purposes?
-
RPI is always earnings per portfolio size.
Earnings of a single image ist not important.
-
RPI is always earnings per portfolio size.
Earnings of a single image ist not important.
What does then RPI stand for word-by-word? e.g. what does the "I" mean?
But there's also no chart in the blogpost that shows Return Per Portfolio, which, I believe, would be calculated something like (total sum of earnings) / (number of portfolios). There are only absolute numbers per portfolios, so that the differences are visible, when they are put together.
Or do you mean some other way of calculating "Return per Portfolio" that in your opinion was actually used in the blogpost?
-
Looking at monthly income report of Steve from January 2023. He is making about $2900 with average 15.000 images.
Thats an RPI of 0,19.
The cat images sell some months above average, some months below. But overall this single image is not much important for his yearly income. So i would not focus on a single image,
There is a downward trend of images selling half at about 24 to 48 months. Yuri called it mpm.
Its important to "maintain a production minimum" to keep income stable.
The cat images is probably selling well longer. Maybe because of maintaining a good stable search rank. Nobody can tell.
-
Hey folks
We teamed with Steve Heap to explore his earnings in more details than anybody before. The goal was to explore his portfolio 'half-life' over at different agencies, however we also made a deep dive into his best-sellers and their impact on earnings.
Check out a new blogpost "How passive is income from microstock photography" https://xpiksapp.com/blog/passive-income-microstock/ (https://xpiksapp.com/blog/passive-income-microstock/)
Really curious what do you think about it and if you agree with conclusions
Very interesting subject / read. As I approach retirement this will play a bigger part in my planning. I doubt I'll ever stop working 100% and will most likely submit work to a couple of agencies albeit at a reduced volume focusing on a couple of key subjects but it's interesting to learn how fast the income is likely to drop. It looks like it should provide a tidy amount for 10+ years and probably longer with a little extra attention along the way. Thanks
-
The cat images sell some months above average, some months below. But overall this single image is not much important for his yearly income. So i would not focus on a single image,
We are nowhere focusing on the cat image. The earning downward trend for cat image (Steve's best-seller) is shown to demonstrate of what we will do for every image of his portfolio in order to estimate for portfolio half-time.
Estimation is hard for separate images precisely for the reasons you mentioned. The ultimate goal of the article was to estimate that on the portfolio level.
P.S. RPI does not matter much at all in my opinion because it is too detached metric.
-
The cat images sell some months above average, some months below. But overall this single image is not much important for his yearly income. So i would not focus on a single image,
We are nowhere focusing on the cat image. The earning downward trend for cat image (Steve's best-seller) is shown to demonstrate of what we will do for every image of his portfolio in order to estimate for portfolio half-time.
Estimation is hard for separate images precisely for the reasons you mentioned. The ultimate goal of the article was to estimate that on the portfolio level.
P.S. RPI does not matter much at all in my opinion because it is too detached metric.
Sorry, maybe i am to focused at the best seller cat.
Interesting report. Thanks for your work.
-
I don't know that much about the half-life of images, and something that causes images to lose their earnings potential, aside from just plain aging, is competition.
Yeah, totally.
However, we estimated the half-life of sales exactly, if that makes sense. I believe that sales of the image include all of the factors (ranking changes by agency, competition, becoming out of date etc.).
I enjoyed the report, so two questions:
1) How many images do I need to make $1,000 a month?
2) What's the predicted RPI in 2023 for SS, IS, AL, DT and AS combined?
#2 should determine the answer to #1? Unless all of this only applies to Steve, and someone else might do better and someone else (pointing at self) might do worse.
And question #1 is kind of a spoof, maybe tongue in cheek, but I wonder what the math says.
-
Has Steve Heap ever visited this forum or via a username by any chance?
-
Looking at monthly income report of Steve from January 2023. He is making about $2900 with average 15.000 images.
Thats an RPI of 0,19.
I cannot even dream of getting anywhere near an RPI of 0,19.
-
Has Steve Heap ever visited this forum or via a username by any chance?
steheap
https://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/?u=1036 (https://www.microstockgroup.com/profile/?u=1036)
-
Looking at monthly income report of Steve from January 2023. He is making about $2900 with average 15.000 images.
Thats an RPI of 0,19.
I cannot even dream of getting anywhere near an RPI of 0,19.
Yes 0,19 is a quite good RPI nowadays.
Regarding some reports of microstock income the RPI range of a generalist seems to be between 0,01 and 0,3.
Some professional seems to be in the RPI range between 0,4 and 3. But these professionals are specialists doing mostly lifestyle photography.
-
My personal best seller at SS had daily sales until one day it didn't - it went from a top line on page one for a one word search to nowhere in the top 10 pages one day and the sales went away too.
Ditto
-
Thank you!
-
The results are roughly what I expected.
I created a series of 52 instructional videos in the late 1990s. I was hoping for "make once, sell forever" products. Basically a video form of microstock (a decade before I started with microstock).
Sales were great at first, and then tapered off. What I found was that every time I put out a new video, it not only started selling the new videos, but it ALSO kicked up the sales of older videos. Basically, the new videos brought in new buyers, who then liked them and went back to buy older ones in the same series.
I stopped making videos after 9/11. I had an artist that was supposed to fly in from London for a shoot that day, and all planes were grounded. We lost momentum, and then decided it wasn't worth the effort we were putting in. Thus, we had a distinct cut-off date for new videos.
Sales followed the lines very similar to this study. A bit of a peak after I announced no new ones would be coming, as old customers came back to fill in their collections. Then fewer and fewer every year. Our last sale was in 2018, where we sold a grand total of 2 copies (1 each of two videos to one individual).
-
The results are roughly what I expected.
I created a series of 52 instructional videos in the late 1990s. I was hoping for "make once, sell forever" products. Basically a video form of microstock (a decade before I started with microstock).
Sales were great at first, and then tapered off. What I found was that every time I put out a new video, it not only started selling the new videos, but it ALSO kicked up the sales of older videos. Basically, the new videos brought in new buyers, who then liked them and went back to buy older ones in the same series.
I stopped making videos after 9/11. I had an artist that was supposed to fly in from London for a shoot that day, and all planes were grounded. We lost momentum, and then decided it wasn't worth the effort we were putting in. Thus, we had a distinct cut-off date for new videos.
Sales followed the lines very similar to this study. A bit of a peak after I announced no new ones would be coming, as old customers came back to fill in their collections. Then fewer and fewer every year. Our last sale was in 2018, where we sold a grand total of 2 copies (1 each of two videos to one individual).
Are you saying that your videos had a strong following and most of these people downloaded everything, one time, and when they had that, since 2018 there is no new demand? Are the videos that time sensitive for content? Or did some many newer videos start to cover the same subject and you have been surpassed by newer content?
The whole no sales since 2018 is really hitting a wall, isn't it. Unfortunate
-
Yes, I'm here! I don't come here anything like as often as I used to. I've got photos to work on and social media stuff to do!
Steve
-
What's in a name? Since you asked, with respect, the name of the thread is ridiculous and arrogant.
Who wants you to tell them when their images will stop selling, as if you even could. For this reason, I'm not even reading.
Steve is more gracious than I, but one can read into his response just above mine. Did he ask you to do this? Did you ask him?
P.S. They will NEVER stop selling.
Good day.
-
I think most photographers are JEALOUS of his success. Take it or leave it.