Author Topic: How Much are you making? (Read 21450 times)

MatHayward · « **on:** October 08, 2009, 23:03 »

I am very curious about this. As many of you know, I'm 100% exclusive to Fotolia and love the 55% commission rate on the inflated prices of my images. For me it makes sense. For most of you, I know you disagree. That's OK. Reading the polls and threads about favorite sites has me very curious about the level at which we are all at. I remember there was a large poll that many of us participated in but the numbers were skewed because it was an average system where the top couple of guys made a disproportionate amount compared to the average.

Please take a moment and answer this survey honestly.

Thanks!

Mat

fotografer · « **Reply #1 on:** October 08, 2009, 23:54 »

The 2000 to 5000 seems to be too big a catagory to me. There is a huge difference between earning 2100 than 4900.

helix7 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 09, 2009, 00:06 »

Quote from: fotografer on October 08, 2009, 23:54

The 2000 to 5000 seems to be too big a catagory to me. There is a huge difference between earning 2100 than 4900.

Kind of what I was thinking. I don't mind saying I'm in that category because it doesn't tell anyone much about what I earn. I could be living in poverty or making a decent living in that range of earnings.

MatHayward · « **Reply #3 on:** October 09, 2009, 02:15 »

That's a fair point. I just figured 2-5 was an upper-mid range. It's already interesting to see the diverse mix. I'm impressed to see the ratio of photographers in the top two categories.

RT · « **Reply #4 on:** October 09, 2009, 04:50 »

Quote from: MatHayward on October 09, 2009, 02:15

I'm impressed to see the ratio of photographers in the top two categories.

It would be worth pointing out that to be in the top two categories takes a lot of hard work, skill and long hours, otherwise anybody seeing this poll is just going to be suckered into the 'make money from shots sitting on your hard drive' nonsense, add to that fact that the competition is growing and the majority of agencies are doing their level best to pay out as little as possible from the license fees.
I also think that some might confuse the poll for how much their dollar sales total is rather than how much they actually make - big difference!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #5 on:** October 09, 2009, 07:34 »

Since this poll shows nothing about portfolio size, number of agencies, or anything, I can't say it's of much use.

orson · « **Reply #6 on:** October 09, 2009, 08:38 »

Hi,
I think, that lot of registered users from this forum don't want to write here their earnings. So maybe if it would be anonymous poll, then they will be more open and select some option from the poll.

So if you want, here is an anonymous poll on polldaddy.com site, that I just created (it is also much easier for answering):

http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/2097733/

leaf · « **Reply #7 on:** October 09, 2009, 08:47 »

Quote from: orson on October 09, 2009, 08:38

Hi,
I think, that lot of registered users from this forum don't want to write here their earnings. So maybe if it would be anonymous poll, then they will be more open and select some option from the poll.

So if you want, here is an anonymous poll on polldaddy.com site, that I just created (it is also much easier for answering):

http://answers.polldaddy.com/poll/2097733/

this poll IS anonymous

MikLav · « **Reply #8 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:08 »

Does question mean microstock only? Or Alamy, Getty, Corbis and other included?

BTW I am pretty much sure that around 70-80% of all microstock earnings are made by a group of just a few hundred photographers.

travelstock · « **Reply #9 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:11 »

Quote from: RT on October 09, 2009, 04:50

Quote from: MatHayward on October 09, 2009, 02:15
I'm impressed to see the ratio of photographers in the top two categories.

It would be worth pointing out that to be in the top two categories takes a lot of hard work, skill and long hours, otherwise anybody seeing this poll is just going to be suckered into the 'make money from shots sitting on your hard drive' nonsense, add to that fact that the competition is growing and the majority of agencies are doing their level best to pay out as little as possible from the license fees.
I also think that some might confuse the poll for how much their dollar sales total is rather than how much they actually make - big difference!

Very true - and its probably also worth pointing out that a lot of contributors on this forum have been in the game for several years building up portfolios, and are the ones after all this time still doing it. Microstock has a very long tail of contributors who don't make anywhere near these figures.

gostwyck · « **Reply #10 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:18 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 09, 2009, 07:34

Since this poll shows nothing about portfolio size, number of agencies, or anything, I can't say it's of much use.

Worse than that the question is not actually specific to microstock or even photography in general __ just 'how much are you making'.

If people are voting honestly then some of them must be including income from other sources. There are probably fewer than 100 people worldwide earning more than $5K per month from microstock and I doubt that 11 of them have turned up to vote here. I'd guess there may be 60 or 70 in that category in total which would be roughly 0.2% of the 30K contributors listed on the multimedia.de chart.

cthoman · « **Reply #11 on:** October 09, 2009, 09:19 »

Good idea for a poll. I was thinking something like this would be interesting to see.

stokfoto · « **Reply #12 on:** October 09, 2009, 10:48 »

Quote from: MikLav on October 09, 2009, 09:08

BTW I am pretty much sure that around 70-80% of all microstock earnings are made by a group of just a few hundred photographers.

Totally agree! In this sense micros seems to have become a bit of like macros like smaller number of photographers were in the business it was hard to get in whereas micros seem to be open for almost anyone to join but it seems to me now micros start to have it's own caste. the rest of the thousands of contributes will likely to remain as hobbyists or might even give up.Just to clear up I am not criticising anything or anyone just wanted to express my thoughts on the industry.I hope this was not too off topic.

madelaide · « **Reply #13 on:** October 09, 2009, 11:25 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 09, 2009, 07:34

Since this poll shows nothing about portfolio size, number of agencies, or anything, I can't say it's of much use.

I agree. I don't put that much effort, especially now on micros (haven't uploaded in months), so I can only be ok with my small earnings from a small portfolio.

MatHayward · « **Reply #14 on:** October 09, 2009, 11:35 »

You're right guys. It isn't a perfect poll by any means. It could have been 60 questions long to get super specific but I was just interested in a snapshot version to see where the average is. My intent was to ask how much YOU are earning, not how much revenue is being produced from your images grossly. It should have been obvious I was referring to microstock since it's a microstock forum but I know now I should have really spelled it out. Sorry about that.

I do appreciate those of you that answered honestly. There is more money being made on average it appears than I had originally thought.

Best,

Mat

vonkara · « **Reply #15 on:** October 09, 2009, 11:49 »

I have seen a couple of polls about earnings before and I always liked it. Maybe there should be a couple more options but, polls don't get much more than 100-200 votes.

Still I would like to see multiple questions polls. If leaf is around, it would be interesting to be able to ask like, up to 3 questions by poll and indepedently select how much vote people have on each.

LSD72 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 09, 2009, 12:18 »

Did Old Hippy vote yet?

leaf · « **Reply #17 on:** October 09, 2009, 12:20 »

Quote from: Vonkara on October 09, 2009, 11:49

I have seen a couple of polls about earnings before and I always liked it. Maybe there should be a couple more options but, polls don't get much more than 100-200 votes.

Still I would like to see multiple questions polls. If leaf is around, it would be interesting to be able to ask like, up to 3 questions by poll and indepedently select how much vote people have on each.

yeah, that would be nice. I don't think advanced polls like that would be very easy to implement. On the other hand I do plan on running another extensive poll at the end of the year which should give us some good stats about what everyone has been up to. I also plan to display last years stats a little better.

One thing you can do though, is ask a couple questions in the poll, let everyone have 2 answers and put a divider line to sperate the voting areas. It is a little backwards and people have another chance to 'spam' the results but for getting a general idea of results it works ok.

vonkara · « **Reply #18 on:** October 09, 2009, 12:39 »

Yea extensive poll would be nice to see again. I don't remember how much people voted last time, but when it will be ready, you should keep the poll thread sticky at the top of MSG for one month or something. Would be nice to achieve 500 votes or more.

madelaide · « **Reply #19 on:** October 09, 2009, 12:46 »

Matt,

I am not contrary to the poll the way it is, it's just that people have to clearly see what it means. Indeed, higher numbers say that people can make a living out of microstock. It only doesn't explain if the smaller figures are unsuccessful contributors or people who do not dedicate themselves to it.

gbcimages · « **Reply #21 on:** October 09, 2009, 13:18 »

everyone isn't going to tell what they make

reckless · « **Reply #22 on:** October 09, 2009, 13:26 »

Although I am only in the second group, I do find this poll encouraging after one year of uploading to micros. The strict requirements of the micros (noise, focus and commercial value) have caused me to improve my own skills tremendously.

madelaide · « **Reply #23 on:** October 09, 2009, 13:31 »

Mat,

What I question in microstock is some aspects of it. I believe it opened a whole new market of people who would never purchase images in regular agencies. Also for new photographers, even with small portfolios, as big agencies normally require (or required...) indication from another member or a very large portfolio for evaluation.

On the other hand, licensing terms in micros should not need to be so flexible - like you buy one image and may use it for several different projects, if complying with some restrictions. That is, to me RF is not what microstock should be about, but single-use licensing for that very small fee. Of course, this is almost impossible to enforce and therefore useless, I'm just talking about the theory.

And my biggest problem is subscriptions, which I think are not necessary and only benefits the big buyers who could afford more for those images that are already so cheap in microstock. It is very convenient to them, just that - regardless of how much we may make from this. And as a side effect we have the people who buy subs and then resell images in CDs... because the images are so cheap.

pet_chia · « **Reply #24 on:** October 09, 2009, 14:54 »

I would like to see the income/month related to the number of hours/month spent on the job (slash hobby). That would give people a better idea of how much they can potentially make. It would also be interesting to see the total $$$ invested in photo equipment related to these factors. Possibly this would be skewed however by some hobbyists who spend a lot on equipment just for the pleasure of it, and only sell photos on the side, but ignoring any outliers, this would give people a good idea of how much return they might receive relative to an investment of time and money.

lisafx · « **Reply #25 on:** October 09, 2009, 15:08 »

I am really surprised at the number of people making good money in micros. This group must be self-selected for serious microstockers

It would be interesting to know how long each respondent had been uploading. I am certain that the low earnings are probably mostly newer members and the higher earnings are probably from more established contributors.

If you are someone with less than two years at this and making over 5K/month you are surely a genius or the hardest working person alive

Dook · « **Reply #26 on:** October 09, 2009, 16:47 »

Quote from: RT on October 09, 2009, 04:50

Quote from: MatHayward on October 09, 2009, 02:15
I'm impressed to see the ratio of photographers in the top two categories.

It would be worth pointing out that to be in the top two categories takes a lot of hard work, skill and long hours, otherwise anybody seeing this poll is just going to be suckered into the 'make money from shots sitting on your hard drive' nonsense, add to that fact that the competition is growing and the majority of agencies are doing their level best to pay out as little as possible from the license fees.
I also think that some might confuse the poll for how much their dollar sales total is rather than how much they actually make - big difference!

No, nobody is suckered. After all, we were all driven to microstock by some kind of "advertisement" from stock agencies or their contributors. Everybody has the right to give it a try. I started microstock the same way. I was not aware of hard work etc., but thanks to confusing pools I started doing it. And now I am a regular contributor, at least. One of ten will succeed, and that is a god number.

melastmohican · « **Reply #27 on:** October 09, 2009, 17:01 »

It only takes sales into consideration. $5000/month in 3rd world country would be extremely good but in my developed countries it would be enough to live descent life. Also how about cost, which leads us to profit. If I spent $4999 a month to get $5000 I will not be very successful :-)

madelaide · « **Reply #28 on:** October 09, 2009, 17:59 »

But then here in the 3rd world any equipment - from cameras to lenses to computers - is much more expensive (at least when compared to the USA). But yes, you need to put cost in that account - would you be making more money if you were using that man-hour in another activity?

I could be making a lot more with technical translations - this is something is always high in demand - but it would be less more fun.

Hmm, I wonder if there is a discussion group for technical translators? Would there be a wilddingo there too?

gostwyck · « **Reply #29 on:** October 09, 2009, 19:21 »

If Brazil is supposedly '3rd World' and yet they're in the G20 ... where the bloody hell is the '2nd World'?

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #30 on:** October 09, 2009, 20:19 »

Quote from: madelaide on October 09, 2009, 13:31

On the other hand, licensing terms in micros should not need to be so flexible - like you buy one image and may use it for several different projects, if complying with some restrictions. That is, to me RF is not what microstock should be about, but single-use licensing for that very small fee. Of course, this is almost impossible to enforce and therefore useless, I'm just talking about the theory.

I was thinking about single-use licensing earlier.

How did it go from the complex usage-based pricing system of RM to the one-price-unlimited-use model of RF?

And about being enforceable, I think technology has advanced enough for somebody to come up with a way of tracking a pay-per-use limited license. And you're right, the reduced cost of micro should have had a corresponding reduction in usage.

With prices dropping I think at some point someone like Getty may try a new model like this to stabilize pricing.

leaf · « **Reply #31 on:** October 10, 2009, 03:04 »

Quote from: Vonkara on October 09, 2009, 12:39

Yea extensive poll would be nice to see again. I don't remember how much people voted last time, but when it will be ready, you should keep the poll thread sticky at the top of MSG for one month or something. Would be nice to achieve 500 votes or more.

there were 244 voters last year. I will launch the poll at the end of the year - it is sort of a year in summary poll.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #32 on:** October 10, 2009, 10:12 »

Quote from: melastmohican on October 09, 2009, 17:01

It only takes sales into consideration. $5000/month in 3rd world country would be extremely good but in my developed countries it would be enough to live descent life. Also how about cost, which leads us to profit. If I spent $4999 a month to get $5000 I will not be very successful :-)

Thats true, I don't make a ton but I can travel around the world breaking even (mostly because my travels are all in the developing world, for instance my hostel tonight costs less than 4 bucks and a meal is 2). Back home it's a lot less money than here.

ShadySue · « **Reply #33 on:** October 10, 2009, 10:33 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 09, 2009, 19:21

If Brazil is supposedly '3rd World' and yet they're in the G20 ... where the bloody hell is the '2nd World'?

It referred to the Communist Bloc, when there was such a thing.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #34 on:** October 10, 2009, 11:23 »

Quote from: ShadySue on October 10, 2009, 10:33

Quote from: gostwyck on October 09, 2009, 19:21
If Brazil is supposedly '3rd World' and yet they're in the G20 ... where the bloody hell is the '2nd World'?
It referred to the Communist Bloc, when there was such a thing.

I think developing world and industrialized nations are more the norm now, correct me if I'm wrong.

Graffoto · « **Reply #35 on:** October 10, 2009, 12:41 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on October 10, 2009, 11:23

Quote from: ShadySue on October 10, 2009, 10:33
Quote from: gostwyck on October 09, 2009, 19:21
If Brazil is supposedly '3rd World' and yet they're in the G20 ... where the bloody hell is the '2nd World'?
It referred to the Communist Bloc, when there was such a thing.

I think developing world and industrialized nations are more the norm now, correct me if I'm wrong.

I believe that you are right, these are the politically correct terms these days.
Unfortunately, I have been to parts of this world were 'developing' is a pretty long stretch of the term.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #36 on:** October 10, 2009, 19:43 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 09, 2009, 15:08

I am really surprised at the number of people making good money in micros. This group must be self-selected for serious microstockers

Have to agree. After looking back at other surveys, how many images and some sales numbers, the forum is, in general, the top 15% of Microstock, and considering some recognizable names and people, probably even a higher ranking for many of the regulars here. That's based on responses to surveys like this one, where you can see the dollar amounts don't match with the general site statistics.

So I'm in good company, but I'm not one of those with the big numbers.

Over 60% of the IS members have never made $1000 total from their account. Make that two years and you are seeing that people making $500 a year are the top 30%. No I didn't get that backwards, 70% of the people with Micro accounts make less than $500 a year, but here, 43% make over $500 a month!

Take it from here. 27% of the people answering the poll, are making over $1000 a month on Microstock. Now that's pretty darn good.

No complaints. Just pointing out that any survey here is going to be fairly skewed towards the positive side.

melastmohican · « **Reply #37 on:** October 12, 2009, 18:31 »

Results show that probably 10-15% can actually make a living out of micro. More than 50% are just hobbists trying to subsidize their photography hobby. Rest are probably professionals who are treating micro as additional source of income.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #38 on:** October 12, 2009, 19:18 »

Interestingly enough, I just noticed that "iofoto" hasn't uploaded to iStock in a year or so.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #39 on:** October 12, 2009, 19:53 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 12, 2009, 19:18

Interestingly enough, I just noticed that "iofoto" hasn't uploaded to iStock in a year or so.

That is interesting. You would think even if he is off doing something else he would still have lots of material to submit given much fewer allowable submissions slots to iS.

gostwyck · « **Reply #40 on:** October 12, 2009, 20:01 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 12, 2009, 19:18

Interestingly enough, I just noticed that "iofoto" hasn't uploaded to iStock in a year or so.

Or anywhere else. Seems to have pretty much given up on microstock for the time being. Total contrast with Monkey Business though who is still going balls-out __ 300-odd images already this month on DT and averaging nearly 900 per month for 20 months consecutively. Phew!

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #41 on:** October 12, 2009, 20:56 »

Boy, talk about churning them out!

There's a ton of similars in there though.
http://www.dreamstime.com/Monkeybusinessimages_portfolio_pg6

traveler1116 · « **Reply #42 on:** October 12, 2009, 21:14 »

Quote from: sjlocke on October 12, 2009, 20:56

Boy, talk about churning them out!

There's a ton of similars in there though.
http://www.dreamstime.com/Monkeybusinessimages_portfolio_pg6

But 64,000 sales at DT in a year and a half is pretty impressive, must be doing something right.

gostwyck · « **Reply #43 on:** October 12, 2009, 21:18 »

Tell me about it. I wish I could get just 3 or 4 of my totally different, proven well-selling, food images from the same series accepted by DT.

DT do seem to have a bizarre inverse-skill in identifying the best-selling ones though __ they'll be the ones they reject. Almost invariably they become the best selling images everywhere else. Hey-ho.

mantonino · « **Reply #44 on:** October 12, 2009, 21:41 »

I answered the poll. The only problem I see with it is that honestly if you're making the lower figures you're not spending your time on micro forums because it's not a HUGE part of your life. If you're here you're more likely to be making money.

dirkr · « **Reply #45 on:** October 13, 2009, 03:53 »

Quote from: gostwyck on October 09, 2009, 19:21

... where the bloody hell is the '2nd World'?

The good old US of A

Every time I'm over there and look at the streets and cars and all the infrastructure, I know I'm not in the 1st world anymore..

*looking for cover under the table now*

MikLav · « **Reply #46 on:** October 13, 2009, 04:06 »

Quote from: mantonino on October 12, 2009, 21:41

I answered the poll. The only problem I see with it is that honestly if you're making the lower figures you're not spending your time on micro forums because it's not a HUGE part of your life. If you're here you're more likely to be making money.

Totally agree - there are thousands of contributors at low end who never show up here. Though some of high end too

Yuri is here very seldom, Andres or Kathy are never coming here, as well as other top microstockers. So it's probably more like middle class people gathering here

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #47 on:** October 13, 2009, 11:57 »

Quote from: MikLav on October 13, 2009, 04:06

Quote from: mantonino on October 12, 2009, 21:41
I answered the poll. The only problem I see with it is that honestly if you're making the lower figures you're not spending your time on micro forums because it's not a HUGE part of your life. If you're here you're more likely to be making money.
Totally agree - there are thousands of contributors at low end who never show up here. Though some of high end too Yuri is here very seldom, Andres or Kathy are never coming here, as well as other top microstockers. So it's probably more like middle class people gathering here

This is pretty much a generalization. I spend a lot of time here and make very little from stock. But, I'm retired and have plenty of time on my hands. Plus, I do learn a little from reading your posts.

gbcimages · « **Reply #48 on:** October 13, 2009, 12:07 »

same here, I'm also retired and make just enough to buy my hunting licenses and few other things. I'm far short of making a living at it . I like to brows the form and see how everyone else is doing.

Jack Schiffer · « **Reply #49 on:** October 13, 2009, 14:30 »

I make enough to buy new equipment to keep up the competition. I am slowly
moving into portrait photography. My next buy would be Calumet Genesis 200 2- light kit.

RT · « **Reply #50 on:** October 13, 2009, 17:14 »

Quote from: Jack Schiffer on October 13, 2009, 14:30

I am slowly moving into portrait photography. My next buy would be Calumet Genesis 200 2- light kit.

I think you'd be better off getting the 400 kit they do, 200 won't be powerful enough and you'll limit your options. Check eBay, Calumet quite often sell off their stuff a lot cheaper than it is in the shop.

Jack Schiffer · « **Reply #51 on:** October 14, 2009, 06:38 »

Quote from: RT on October 13, 2009, 17:14

Quote from: Jack Schiffer on October 13, 2009, 14:30
I am slowly moving into portrait photography. My next buy would be Calumet Genesis 200 2- light kit.

I think you'd be better off getting the 400 kit they do, 200 won't be powerful enough and you'll limit your options. Check eBay, Calumet quite often sell off their stuff a lot cheaper than it is in the shop.

Thanks I'll check ebay out

Rival · « **Reply #52 on:** October 16, 2009, 05:13 »

I'm making some dollars per month, but it's not so much... I had to do programming so

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Poll

How much money are you bringing in on average per month?

Author Topic: How Much are you making? (Read 21450 times)

helix7

vonkara

vonkara

gbcimages

reckless

lisafx

Dook

traveler1116

traveler1116

RacePhoto

traveler1116

WarrenPrice

gbcimages

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors