pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

How much do you make per month from microstock?

0-100 ($)
48 (27.4%)
100-200 ($)
20 (11.4%)
200-400 ($)
24 (13.7%)
400-600 ($)
16 (9.1%)
600-1000($)
19 (10.9%)
>1000 ($)
21 (12%)
>2000($) ?
27 (15.4%)

Total Members Voted: 160

Author Topic: How much do you earn per month really????  (Read 42669 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #100 on: March 01, 2010, 11:06 »
0
I'm sure the drop in Yuri's income is from the lowering of commissions by the stock agencies as well as this economy, but has anyone ever ask rather these drops could be because of market changes? Probably 99% of his port is studio shots. It could be possible that buyers are changing to more traditional photography. The market is flooded with studio shots...people shots...and it is possible the market is changing.


« Reply #101 on: March 01, 2010, 11:26 »
0
I'm sure the drop in Yuri's income is from the lowering of commissions by the stock agencies as well as this economy, but has anyone ever ask rather these drops could be because of market changes? Probably 99% of his port is studio shots. It could be possible that buyers are changing to more traditional photography. The market is flooded with studio shots...people shots...and it is possible the market is changing.

What agencies are lowering commissions?  99% of his port is not studio shots.  What is "more traditional photography"?

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #102 on: March 01, 2010, 11:40 »
0
I'm sure the drop in Yuri's income is from the lowering of commissions by the stock agencies as well as this economy, but has anyone ever ask rather these drops could be because of market changes? Probably 99% of his port is studio shots. It could be possible that buyers are changing to more traditional photography. The market is flooded with studio shots...people shots...and it is possible the market is changing.

What agencies are lowering commissions?  99% of his port is not studio shots.  What is "more traditional photography"?
Sites are going to subs which in turn is lowering commissions...Look at Fotolia for example..I said 99% of his port is PROBABLY studio shots. Look how many studios he has. Look at the first 5 pages of his port on iStock...they are all studio/people shots outside of 1. I'm not going to dig through his port of 5000 images to get an exact figure...anyway when I refer to traditional photography...I'm referring to non studio shots.

ShadySue

« Reply #103 on: March 01, 2010, 12:02 »
0
99% of his port is not studio shots. 
He has this huge big aeroplane hangar set up with loads of studio sets, reminds me a bit of ikea, though he has other than domestic studio sets. I don't believe that he only does 1% of his shots in there. If so, no wonder he isn't making a profit.

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #104 on: March 01, 2010, 12:09 »
0
Maybe 60% is more accurate...I really don't know, but the majority of his big money makers have been studio shots.

« Reply #105 on: March 01, 2010, 12:25 »
0
Maybe 60% is more accurate...I really don't know, but the majority of his big money makers have been studio shots.

Did he tell you that?

donding

  • Think before you speak
« Reply #106 on: March 01, 2010, 12:27 »
0
Maybe 60% is more accurate...I really don't know, but the majority of his big money makers have been studio shots.

Did he tell you that?
I wish... :D When you look at his port on iStock his best "flamed" sellers are studio shots..

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #107 on: March 01, 2010, 13:22 »
0
If the poll is right...so far 14% (14 out of 101) are making over $2000.00 a month which is more then I expected. Despite Yuri's thread gloomy outlook, microstock still look healthy. Who knows, maybe his port are loosing to the smaller ones. Denis

Yes, but the poll only asks what you're making now. It's not so healthy if those making $2000 a month used to make $4000.

and by the way, they could easily spend 1999$ in order to make 2000$.

it's like Yuri saying he makes 1 million/year but then admitting he's wasting more than 900K
in production costs.

lisafx

« Reply #108 on: March 01, 2010, 14:07 »
0
Like I said, nothing inherently wrong with making your money blogging about micro, just don't expect those that stand to lose out from your efforts to help you do it :)
Well those anonymous contributor referral hunters are quite spammy and annoying on a forum like this.

I totally agree.  Anyone trolling for referrals here has come to the wrong place.  Those hanging out on this board already know about micro, and most are not naive enough to click on referral links from someone spamming up the site. 

Personally, if I want to add another site I will privately sitemail someone I know and respect and get their link.  The rare times I have used referral links I would like to throw some extra $ to someone who actually adds value to this site and the industry in general.

And no, Luis, I was not singling you out.  It should be obvious that I was trying to address the phenomenon as a whole without getting personal toward any one individual.  Please don't look for insults where none were intended :)

lisafx

« Reply #109 on: March 01, 2010, 14:24 »
0

What agencies are lowering commissions?  99% of his port is not studio shots.  What is "more traditional photography"?

In addition to more buyers moving from PPD to subs, as mentioned, Fotolia lowered commission % and also doubled cannister level targets.  DT lowered commission %.  IS lowered prices on the larger sizes for independents, which results in a lower royalty, and Getty changed sub royalties for independents from .30 to .25. 

Alamy (thought not a micor), where lots of independents have RF, also lowered commission %. 

It's been a tough year for independents.  Bad enough to have to deal with market saturation and image collection dilution, but to also have royalties slashed at so many sites makes it unsurprising that so many are seeing their incomes stagnate or decline. 

Put me in the stagnant category.  Despite adding 20% to my portfolio my income is in exactly where it was a year ago, and in sharp decline from where it was in Sept - Nov 09.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #110 on: March 01, 2010, 17:15 »
0

Put me in the stagnant category.  Despite adding 20% to my portfolio my income is in exactly where it was a year ago, and in sharp decline from where it was in Sept - Nov 09.

but what did you expected ? we "macrosaurs" are saying this since the days of RF and photodiscs.

and if you think this is the end or the bottom race wait 1-2 years when IS and SS will have 20 or 30
million images and nobody will make serious money anymore along with new cheaper subscription
models and who knows what they have in store.

the market decided photography is worth nothing, we must accept this and go forward.
RM is still paying the bills for me, because i don't shoot anything buyers can find on micros
nor i sell RF apart this new experiment with IS that so far looks promising.

« Reply #111 on: March 01, 2010, 21:06 »
0
I welcome all users to answer this poll.I know that most of you consider that all depends on talent,equipment,time spent,etc etc...But all of you know that it's all about the money!So please be honest and let's see the real statistics about this business.Thanks a lot

PS it would be nice to have a more accurate pool if people can say I earn exactly $ xx.xx from $x agencies with xxxx images online.
I'll go first...
Shutterstock: $103 with 795 images online
Dreamstime:$21 with 325 images online
Fotolia: $36 with 557 images online
IstockPhoto: $14 with 103 images online
123RF: $9 with 556 images online
Total: $183

Did they teach you in that cheap wannabe marketing course about 2 or 3 forbidden life questions???
1. Whats you monthly income?
2. How often you have sex with youre girl/wife?
3. I dont remember the third one (maybe to ask girl about weight, or for what you vote) but as I see you came here like yesterday born doodle drawn person and ask that???

If you want to find it read posts between lines if you have some active gray matter in you brain Grrrrr ...
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 21:09 by Suljo »

« Reply #112 on: March 02, 2010, 07:22 »
0
@Sharply Done,
no. I will never let money take over my life.
No matter the amount.

I will not let the fear of competition and losing sales stand in my way of helping people.
I feel good about it, it's in my nature, and I will always do it.

But it gets even worse.
Not only I want to help newbies, but I'm constantly pestering my friends and collegues to join microstock. I'm irritating everyone around me and I keep at it.
No, I have no referral links, I never will.

I think the fear of the newbie/ competiton is absurd. A futile waste of energy and a lost fight.

@Louis Santos,
do whatever you want with your blog and referrals. Get as many as you can for all I care, good luck to you!
But I have a favour to ask you :)
Take ThinkStock/Photos.com off your list.

It's not the bewildered newbie and his Canon Rebel who's a danger to this industry. It's the 0.25 cent from Getty.
Unfortunately there are a lot of experienced photographers who actively upload there. Not much I can do about it.
The time has come to fall in love with IStock's upload limits.
My only hope.

Microbius

« Reply #113 on: March 02, 2010, 07:42 »
0

There's a pretty clear dividing line here. Those that make a significant part of their living out of this see the diminishing returns and bad treatment from agencies due to oversupply and realise their ability to feed themselves and their families is impaired by it.

Most of the people that are pro getting everyone onto the sinking ship seem to have the speedos barely ticking over under their names making me think they are probably the hobbyists. That or they just want to make a quick couple of bucks through referrals.

When your income depends on other people's success, through referrals or when it's a hobby or just a way to get a bit of extra cash doing what you enjoy it's far easier to be everyone's friend. I can fully understand it, I maybe would have been the same when this was just fun and games for me. If you take this seriously as a business and if you are ever lucky enough to do this for a job then you will think differently, believe me. It's just a shame that your actions now are decreasing your chances of ever being able to do that.

« Reply #114 on: March 02, 2010, 10:29 »
0
I see the sky is falling again this morning. Look if the industry can be destroyed by some referral links and hobbyists with cameras, then it probably will be destroyed no matter what you do. I personally think it's a bit more stable than that.

« Reply #115 on: March 02, 2010, 10:37 »
0
Does everyone really think its the blogs, forums, and referral links killing the market?  I mean really, come on.

Its one thing to vent and just choose yourself as the victim, but then there is the truth.

I thought we had all learned the truth after all these years of complaining.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #116 on: March 02, 2010, 11:04 »
0
Does everyone really think its the blogs, forums, and referral links killing the market?  I mean really, come on.

Its one thing to vent and just choose yourself as the victim, but then there is the truth.

I thought we had all learned the truth after all these years of complaining.

the real problem is always the same : the buyers have less money than before and many
are going bankrupt and closing down.

the pie is getting smaller and smaller while production costs are not getting cheaper.
amateurs and hobbysts should be booted out from serious agencies.

agencies should enforce harder prerequisites to join the market, let's say
providing a starting batch of 500 saleable images for instance.

this alone would filter out all the crap getting in and leave space
for serious shooters.

after all many RM agencies do the same, i could list LonelyPlanetImages,
AGE Fotostock, Masterfile ...


Microbius

« Reply #117 on: March 02, 2010, 11:43 »
0
Does everyone really think its the blogs, forums, and referral links killing the market?  I mean really, come on.

Its one thing to vent and just choose yourself as the victim, but then there is the truth.

I thought we had all learned the truth after all these years of complaining.

the real problem is always the same : the buyers have less money than before and many
are going bankrupt and closing down.

the pie is getting smaller and smaller while production costs are not getting cheaper.
amateurs and hobbysts should be booted out from serious agencies.

agencies should enforce harder prerequisites to join the market, let's say
providing a starting batch of 500 saleable images for instance.

this alone would filter out all the crap getting in and leave space
for serious shooters.

after all many RM agencies do the same, i could list LonelyPlanetImages,
AGE Fotostock, Masterfile ...
The problem is that this is exactly the opposite of the business model agencies are now moving towards. Shutterstock showed them the way and it involves as many contributors as possible with the agencies maximising their profits at the contributors expense. Don't forget that under the subs model the more you make the less the agency does. They don't need a few decent photographers, they want loads of mediocre ones. The more discerning can cherry pick the best few photos from each contributor's largely poor portfolio and still have enough images on their sites. The volume merchants like SS can just take everything. It means that no single contributor has any power at all over the agencies, nobody's opinion counts.

« Reply #118 on: March 02, 2010, 11:52 »
0
Does everyone really think its the blogs, forums, and referral links killing the market?  I mean really, come on.

Its one thing to vent and just choose yourself as the victim, but then there is the truth.

I thought we had all learned the truth after all these years of complaining.

Tell me how all that helps the oversupply issue.

Microbius

« Reply #119 on: March 02, 2010, 11:56 »
0
Does everyone really think its the blogs, forums, and referral links killing the market?  I mean really, come on.

Its one thing to vent and just choose yourself as the victim, but then there is the truth.

I thought we had all learned the truth after all these years of complaining.

Tell me how all that helps the oversupply issue.
Of course all the referral links and blogs are helping kill, if not the market, then the profitability of working ion this industry.
How do you think exponential growth of supply is being fuelled? New suppliers aren't randomly stumbling onto the agencies!

« Reply #120 on: March 02, 2010, 11:56 »
0
Good points! :)

@Sharply Done,
no. I will never let money take over my life.
No matter the amount.

I will not let the fear of competition and losing sales stand in my way of helping people.
I feel good about it, it's in my nature, and I will always do it.

But it gets even worse.
Not only I want to help newbies, but I'm constantly pestering my friends and collegues to join microstock. I'm irritating everyone around me and I keep at it.
No, I have no referral links, I never will.

I think the fear of the newbie/ competiton is absurd. A futile waste of energy and a lost fight.

@Louis Santos,
do whatever you want with your blog and referrals. Get as many as you can for all I care, good luck to you!
But I have a favour to ask you :)
Take ThinkStock/Photos.com off your list.

It's not the bewildered newbie and his Canon Rebel who's a danger to this industry. It's the 0.25 cent from Getty.
Unfortunately there are a lot of experienced photographers who actively upload there. Not much I can do about it.
The time has come to fall in love with IStock's upload limits.
My only hope.

« Reply #121 on: March 02, 2010, 11:59 »
0
Don't worry, the same will happen with microstock : fresh indian, chinese, vietnamese, philipinos willing
to shoot for peanuts and flooding the market.

Out of interest does anybody know how these folk are getting their images onto the sites, for the past three years the scaremongers have been shouting 'look out the Chinese are coming' I'm just wondering in they're doing a sponsored walk or something on their way to hand deliver their images to iS and SS HQ.

I do know more than a few chinese, indian, etc micros stock photographers. They post on the micro boards. If you belong to facebook you will find they are active on the net and are friending other microstock photographers. Areas of india should have larger bandwidth than most of us do and many are highly educated so keywording is a non issue.

« Reply #122 on: March 02, 2010, 12:09 »
0
New suppliers aren't randomly stumbling onto the agencies!
Nope. They are carefully targeted with banner ads, google image searches, magazine ads and more. I assume that ads for buyers bring in contributors and referral links for contributors bring in buyers too. Some of them are the same people too. I've bought plenty of images for clients and none of them were my own. So some buyers may be sneaking in with those pesky referral links.

macrosaur

    This user is banned.
« Reply #123 on: March 02, 2010, 13:56 »
0
supply and demand are just not going in par.

too many images, and always the same buyers.

SS has 10 million pics now, but have they doubled or tripled their customers ?
i don't think so.

in 2012 SS will have 20 million pics.
who will survive ?

there must be a point where the agency stop submissions and
only accept the very best.

after all they're already refusing sunsets, dogs, and holiday snaps
for the same reason.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2010, 14:39 by macrosaur »

« Reply #124 on: March 02, 2010, 15:10 »
0
Does everyone really think its the blogs, forums, and referral links killing the market?  I mean really, come on.

Its one thing to vent and just choose yourself as the victim, but then there is the truth.

I thought we had all learned the truth after all these years of complaining.

the real problem is always the same : the buyers have less money than before and many
are going bankrupt and closing down.

the pie is getting smaller and smaller while production costs are not getting cheaper.
amateurs and hobbysts should be booted out from serious agencies.

agencies should enforce harder prerequisites to join the market, let's say
providing a starting batch of 500 saleable images for instance.

this alone would filter out all the crap getting in and leave space
for serious shooters.

after all many RM agencies do the same, i could list LonelyPlanetImages,
AGE Fotostock, Masterfile ...
The problem is that this is exactly the opposite of the business model agencies are now moving towards. Shutterstock showed them the way and it involves as many contributors as possible with the agencies maximising their profits at the contributors expense. Don't forget that under the subs model the more you make the less the agency does. They don't need a few decent photographers, they want loads of mediocre ones. The more discerning can cherry pick the best few photos from each contributor's largely poor portfolio and still have enough images on their sites. The volume merchants like SS can just take everything. It means that no single contributor has any power at all over the agencies, nobody's opinion counts.

It's not that microstock is "moving towards" that model, it IS that model.  That is my point.  Microstock was started on the basis that everyone with a photo can contribute.  Quality requirements have increased, but the model is the same.  Agencies can care less about your images being lost in the search; as long as they still sell SOMEONE'S image they will get paid.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
35 Replies
24842 Views
Last post November 20, 2018, 10:27
by cthoman
14 Replies
4199 Views
Last post October 07, 2014, 22:26
by zstoimenov
7 Replies
2070 Views
Last post January 07, 2016, 03:26
by MxR
8 Replies
2285 Views
Last post January 07, 2017, 08:20
by Justanotherphotographer
26 Replies
6138 Views
Last post February 23, 2017, 12:18
by WindyTai

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results