Author Topic: How was your 2011? (Read 11547 times)

Anyka · « **Reply #25 on:** January 02, 2012, 01:41 »

Not a bad year at all, considering I expected to hit the ceiling in 2011 :
8% growth overall (6% in euros), especially thanks to SS (22%up), 123rf (91%up!), DST (19%) and FT (11%) who covered the loss of sales at Istock (-33%) and Rodeo (-27%).
My port went up with 15%. Alamy did not do well last year, until December, when I 33% of my year income Alamy, which resulted in 3% overall growth.

Just finished leaf's survey. I only suggested 1 extra survey question : "What % appreciation do you have for Leaf doing surveys like this one?" My answer would have been : 200%. Thanks Leaf!

Happy New Year to all of you, and good luck for 2012!

SNP · « **Reply #26 on:** January 02, 2012, 13:26 »

iStock exclusive, compared with 2010:

DLS - 3% drop

$ - 20% increase

gostwyck · « **Reply #27 on:** January 02, 2012, 13:41 »

Quote from: SNP on January 02, 2012, 13:26

iStock exclusive, compared with 2010:

DLS - 3% drop

$ - 20% increase

Nice increase in earnings but a bit worrying that you actually had fewer sales despite all the uploading. Do you think you'll still be exclusive in 12 months from now?

aeonf · « **Reply #28 on:** January 02, 2012, 14:25 »

Quote from: SNP on January 02, 2012, 13:26

iStock exclusive, compared with 2010:

DLS - 3% drop

$ - 20% increase

And what about port size increase ?

Equus · « **Reply #29 on:** January 02, 2012, 15:15 »

Quote from: SNP on January 02, 2012, 13:26

iStock exclusive, compared with 2010:

DLS - 3% drop

$ - 20% increase

Well done Stacey on the $$ increase. I am also exclusive, with 5% reduction in both DL and $$. Can you tell us what you did to achieve the increase in earnings when your DL reduced?

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #30 on:** January 02, 2012, 15:16 »

I ran my numbers 2010/2011 and while I'm happy with total revenue growth I'm concerned that year-to-year download trending doesn't match portfolio growth.

---- 2010/2011 ----
Revenue: +63.90%
Downloads: +32.63%
Images: +66.37%

This could indicate a lot of things but my biggest concern is what contributors with big ports are already facing. The wall.

The bigger my portfolio gets the more difficult it will be to produce enough saleable images to increase year to year revenue. Once I get to say 5,000 images, it is really realistic to be able to add 3,000 that year just to have growth?

With this imbalance there will be a point where I can only produce so many images and then my yearly images percentage will start falling. And when it does I most likely will start seeing revenue plateau or decrease because I can't keep up.

wut · « **Reply #31 on:** January 02, 2012, 15:29 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 02, 2012, 15:16

This could indicate a lot of things but my biggest concern is what contributors with big ports are already facing. The wall.

The bigger my portfolio gets the more difficult it will be to produce enough saleable images to increase year to year revenue. Once I get to say 5,000 images, it is really realistic to be able to add 3,000 that year just to have growth?

With this imbalance there will be a point where I can only produce so many images and then my yearly images percentage will start falling. And when it does I most likely will start seeing revenue plateau or decrease because I can't keep up.

I really can't understand why this is so hard to accept to so many ppl. I know capitalism is based on constant growth, but as we're all witnessing it, it can't last forever, sooner or later we get to a recession. Why do you (by that I mean also everybody else thinking alike) can't accept that and are not satisfied with the plateau that's as high as 5 or 10k nett/month? And then you wonder how can agencies be so greedy, cutting royalties, implementing RC systems - because they hate hitting plateau

gostwyck · « **Reply #32 on:** January 02, 2012, 15:51 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 02, 2012, 15:16

The bigger my portfolio gets the more difficult it will be to produce enough saleable images to increase year to year revenue. Once I get to say 5,000 images, it is really realistic to be able to add 3,000 that year just to have growth?

With this imbalance there will be a point where I can only produce so many images and then my yearly images percentage will start falling. And when it does I most likely will start seeing revenue plateau or decrease because I can't keep up.

From my own figures I'd estimate that a portfolio will 'devalue' by roughly 10-15% per annum, mainly due to the increase in the number of competing images. Therefore, if you want your earnings to grow, you will need to upload at a rate higher than your portfolio devalues.

Clearly it would be impossible to keep improving your productivity by 20%+ per annum so earnings will eventually plateau and presumably then start reducing. Thus 'the wall' that people speak of. Maybe, if you can increase the quality of your images (without increasing the cost of producing them) you might be able to delay the inevitable __ but inevitable it is.

Moonb007 · « **Reply #33 on:** January 02, 2012, 16:25 »

Although I have increased my portfolio throughout 2011 my sales number are down from last year. Check out my blog for a full break down of everything, I have lots of charts and list all the sites I am on. Hopefully 2012 will be a better year as I have a lot of backlogged images to go through. Happy New Years everyone.

http://kwtietz-photography.blogspot.com/2012/01/end-of-year-review.html

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #34 on:** January 02, 2012, 18:13 »

Quote from: wut on January 02, 2012, 15:29

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 02, 2012, 15:16
This could indicate a lot of things but my biggest concern is what contributors with big ports are already facing. The wall.

The bigger my portfolio gets the more difficult it will be to produce enough saleable images to increase year to year revenue. Once I get to say 5,000 images, it is really realistic to be able to add 3,000 that year just to have growth?

With this imbalance there will be a point where I can only produce so many images and then my yearly images percentage will start falling. And when it does I most likely will start seeing revenue plateau or decrease because I can't keep up.

I really can't understand why this is so hard to accept to so many ppl. I know capitalism is based on constant growth, but as we're all witnessing it, it can't last forever, sooner or later we get to a recession. Why do you (by that I mean also everybody else thinking alike) can't accept that and are not satisfied with the plateau that's as high as 5 or 10k nett/month? And then you wonder how can agencies be so greedy, cutting royalties, implementing RC systems - because they hate hitting plateau

10k net monthly? With expenses and taxes someone would need to be grossing $200K-$300K or more. I could probably count on two hands how many micro contributors are netting $10K a month just from micro.

Not sure what your cost of living is but there are plenty of contributors who probably barely surviving with this as a full time job. A plateau and eventual yearly decline means they may need to find a job so they have multiple incomes just to survive. You call this greedy?

wut · « **Reply #35 on:** January 02, 2012, 19:11 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 02, 2012, 18:13

Quote from: wut on January 02, 2012, 15:29
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 02, 2012, 15:16
This could indicate a lot of things but my biggest concern is what contributors with big ports are already facing. The wall.

The bigger my portfolio gets the more difficult it will be to produce enough saleable images to increase year to year revenue. Once I get to say 5,000 images, it is really realistic to be able to add 3,000 that year just to have growth?

With this imbalance there will be a point where I can only produce so many images and then my yearly images percentage will start falling. And when it does I most likely will start seeing revenue plateau or decrease because I can't keep up.

I really can't understand why this is so hard to accept to so many ppl. I know capitalism is based on constant growth, but as we're all witnessing it, it can't last forever, sooner or later we get to a recession. Why do you (by that I mean also everybody else thinking alike) can't accept that and are not satisfied with the plateau that's as high as 5 or 10k nett/month? And then you wonder how can agencies be so greedy, cutting royalties, implementing RC systems - because they hate hitting plateau

10k net monthly? With expenses and taxes someone would need to be grossing $200K-$300K or more. I could probably count on two hands how many micro contributors are netting $10K a month just from micro.

Not sure what your cost of living is but there are plenty of contributors who probably barely surviving with this as a full time job. A plateau and eventual yearly decline means they may need to find a job so they have multiple incomes just to survive. You call this greedy?

I meant 5 or even 10k when you'll hit plateau

. 200-300K is a huge exaggeration IMO, it would mean you should earn something like 17-25k/month gross. I mean what do you shoot, so that models, props, locations and taxes can make up to 20k/month? I don't think you can even spend so much doing things by yourself, at least if you approach shoots like Sean. Just last time he said he never pays more than 200$ for a location, but he usually (or at least often) makes a compensation (photos for location), he shoots models he knows, so no one charges him 1k/h or something

. That being said, shooting micro usually demands micro expenses as well, or else you're indeed going to be netting 20-40%, instead of 85-90% before taxes (if I remember correctly those are Sean's numbers as well). Besides you only have to pay taxes if you're from US, I'm from Europe, I've never payed a cent from IS sales. And yes BDP in my country or better said standard of living is about half of USA's. I also don't have any mortgages etc to pay (I own my flat).

Not sure you can't make it earning 5 or even 10k? I mean where do you live, Park Ave, Bel Air or some place like that? I thought 120k nett yearly was more than enough even if you live in a city like NYC.

All that wasn't even the point. The point is you and many contributors seem to be living just fine what you're doing, you were ok last year earning 64% less, right? You're going to earn much more in the years to come, so you should be able to afford a lot more, so why would you worry about plateau? This really is beyond my comprehension ... . And I don't want to tell anyone what to do, how to think or anything of course. I'd just like to understand the reason of being afraid of earning just, lets say twice as much in a few years, than you earn now and not being able to continue to keep on earning more and more. I know you're a smart guy, so I'd like to get a smart answer

ShadySue · « **Reply #36 on:** January 02, 2012, 19:20 »

Quote from: wut on January 02, 2012, 19:11

Besides you only have to pay taxes if you're from US, I'm from Europe, I've never payed a cent from IS sales.

Ah, so that's why you operate under a pseudonym

I can assure you, the US is NOT the only country where you have to pay taxes.

SNP · « **Reply #37 on:** January 02, 2012, 19:35 »

Quote from: Equus on January 02, 2012, 15:15

Quote from: SNP on January 02, 2012, 13:26
iStock exclusive, compared with 2010:

DLS - 3% drop

$ - 20% increase

Well done Stacey on the $$ increase. I am also exclusive, with 5% reduction in both DL and $$. Can you tell us what you did to achieve the increase in earnings when your DL reduced?

I didn't do anything special this year, other than learning a ton. I went to London for the iStockalypse and took a lot away from that experience. including some really great creative images that have continued to sell fairly well. I didn't upload as much this year as past years, instead focusing on uploading better rather than more content. more important than the number of files I added to my portfolio is the total number of files added to the collection over the year. this number would be hugely greater than anything each of could add to our ports.

I had pretty good Vetta and Agency sales, more ELs and a couple of big BME...e+ is also doing very well for me. all in all I'm okay with how 2011 went, but I would have preferred to see download numbers higher, not just income

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #38 on:** January 02, 2012, 19:36 »

Quote from: wut on January 02, 2012, 19:11

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 02, 2012, 18:13
Quote from: wut on January 02, 2012, 15:29
Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 02, 2012, 15:16
This could indicate a lot of things but my biggest concern is what contributors with big ports are already facing. The wall.

The bigger my portfolio gets the more difficult it will be to produce enough saleable images to increase year to year revenue. Once I get to say 5,000 images, it is really realistic to be able to add 3,000 that year just to have growth?

With this imbalance there will be a point where I can only produce so many images and then my yearly images percentage will start falling. And when it does I most likely will start seeing revenue plateau or decrease because I can't keep up.

I really can't understand why this is so hard to accept to so many ppl. I know capitalism is based on constant growth, but as we're all witnessing it, it can't last forever, sooner or later we get to a recession. Why do you (by that I mean also everybody else thinking alike) can't accept that and are not satisfied with the plateau that's as high as 5 or 10k nett/month? And then you wonder how can agencies be so greedy, cutting royalties, implementing RC systems - because they hate hitting plateau

10k net monthly? With expenses and taxes someone would need to be grossing $200K-$300K or more. I could probably count on two hands how many micro contributors are netting $10K a month just from micro.

Not sure what your cost of living is but there are plenty of contributors who probably barely surviving with this as a full time job. A plateau and eventual yearly decline means they may need to find a job so they have multiple incomes just to survive. You call this greedy?

I meant 5 or even 10k when you'll hit plateau . 200-300K is a huge exaggeration IMO, it would mean you should earn something like 17-25k/month gross. I mean what do you shoot, so that models, props, locations and taxes can make up to 20k/month? I don't think you can even spend so much doing things by yourself, at least if you approach shoots like Sean. Just last time he said he never pays more than 200$ for a location, but he usually (or at least often) makes a compensation (photos for location), he shoots models he knows, so no one charges him 1k/h or something . That being said, shooting micro usually demands micro expenses as well, or else you're indeed going to be netting 20-40%, instead of 85-90% before taxes (if I remember correctly those are Sean's numbers as well). Besides you only have to pay taxes if you're from US, I'm from Europe, I've never payed a cent from IS sales. And yes BDP in my country or better said standard of living is about half of USA's. I also don't have any mortgages etc to pay (I own my flat).

Not sure you can't make it earning 5 or even 10k? I mean where do you live, Park Ave, Bel Air or some place like that? I thought 120k nett yearly was more than enough even if you live in a city like NYC.

All that wasn't even the point. The point is you and many contributors seem to be living just fine what you're doing, you were ok last year earning 64% less, right? You're going to earn much more in the years to come, so you should be able to afford a lot more, so why would you worry about plateau? This really is beyond my comprehension ... . And I don't want to tell anyone what to do, how to think or anything of course. I'd just like to understand the reason of being afraid of earning just, lets say twice as much in a few years, than you earn now and not being able to continue to keep on earning more and more. I know you're a smart guy, so I'd like to get a smart answer

Your assumptions are that this is full time and it's covering bills.

What happens for someone where micro is 20% of their total income and are hoping to go full time? If the plateau happens before they earn enough to live on, then what?

Or how about someone who is barely surviving on micro, has already reached the plateau, and revenue is in decline and drops 25-50% like so many people have been posting?

If I were in those positions I think I'd be worried. Wouldn't you?

This is my free answer. I charge a fee for my smart answers.

wut · « **Reply #39 on:** January 02, 2012, 20:00 »

^^Indeed, I assumed you are doing it full time. I might have gathered wrong info from you posts.

That makes sense. But does it apply to you? I know for a fact it doesn't to some, since they indeed are top contributors, which worry about the same things that you do (and they do earn more than 10k, I'm sure of that;)

Well this is a different scenario. Those ppl haven't made it for themselves. Those earning 5 or 10k (especially if they're not living in a country with high costs of living) have

Hold off from charging me/us until you hit the plateau, mkay ?

wut · « **Reply #40 on:** January 02, 2012, 20:05 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 02, 2012, 19:20

Quote from: wut on January 02, 2012, 19:11
Besides you only have to pay taxes if you're from US, I'm from Europe, I've never payed a cent from IS sales.

Ah, so that's why you operate under a pseudonym

I can assure you, the US is NOT the only country where you have to pay taxes.

Wut? Dunno wut ur talkin' about

I know, but I was too busy making a point

. I do pay 5% at some sites for US sales.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #41 on:** January 02, 2012, 20:16 »

Quote from: wut on January 02, 2012, 20:00

^^Indeed, I assumed you are doing it full time. I might have gathered wrong info from you posts.

That makes sense. But does it apply to you? I know for a fact it doesn't to some, since they indeed are top contributors, which worry about the same things that you do (and they do earn more than 10k, I'm sure of that;)

Well this is a different scenario. Those ppl haven't made it for themselves. Those earning 5 or 10k (especially if they're not living in a country with high costs of living) have

Hold off from charging me/us until you hit the plateau, mkay ?

My examples could apply to just about anybody who's regularly uploading images and expecting the growth curve to be consistent, which in my experience it's not.

Here are my numbers from my first and second year doing this.

Revenue: +3631%
Downloads: +2081%
Images: +345%

---- 2010/2011 ----
Revenue: +63%
Downloads: +32%
Images: +66%

Notice the astronomical growth and how the ratios are nowhere close to my 2010/2011 numbers. Kinda like most newbies who are reporting spectacular growth results vs larger contributors who seem to be reporting they're treading water or seeing declining revenue no matter how many images they add.

The pattern seems pretty common and should be a concern for anybody who relies on micro as income.

Don't worry. No charge for this one.

ETC: Cleaned up numbers.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #42 on:** January 02, 2012, 21:15 »

Quote from: PaulieWalnuts on January 02, 2012, 20:16

My examples could apply to just about anybody who's regularly uploading images and expecting the growth curve to be consistent, which in my experience it's not.

exacty, my small numbers show that too, SS and all agencies stats below:

SS 2009 - 1106 downs and 320$ (7 months)
SS 2010 - 4989 downs and 2026$ (450% ; 633%) over 2009
SS 2011 - 9296 downs and 4790$ (186% ; 236%) over 2010

ALL 2009 - 1662 downs and 818$ (10 months)
ALL 2010 - 8184 downs and 4307$ (492% ; 527%) over 2009
ALL 2011 - 16236 downs and 9690$ (198% ; 225%) over 2010

Pixart · « **Reply #43 on:** January 02, 2012, 21:21 »

I know there are a lot of variables, your niches, your competition, recession, agency shifts etc. but isn't it natural for any business to "plateau"? I don't think revenue can grow forever without the company itself growing. Most of us are one-man businesses. Wouldn't photographers need to hire assistants, retouchers, keyworders or office staff to bust into that new tax bracket?

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #44 on:** January 02, 2012, 21:41 »

Quote from: Pixart on January 02, 2012, 21:21

I know there are a lot of variables, your niches, your competition, recession, agency shifts etc. but isn't it natural for any business to "plateau"? I don't think revenue can grow forever without the company itself growing. Most of us are one-man businesses. Wouldn't photographers need to hire assistants, retouchers, keyworders or office staff to bust into that new tax bracket?

The problem is that some larger contributors are reporting they can't increase revenue no matter how many images they add. Such as they have 5,000 images, add 2,500, and still see a decline with even with a 50% increase in portfolio. So adding an employee may not help.

qwerty · « **Reply #45 on:** January 03, 2012, 03:11 »

earnings up 40%
portfolio increased by 20%

shutterstock and dreamstime were bulk of the increase in earnings.

I had a number of photos increase levels at dreamstime that help earnings there.
Shutterstock must have picked up some of the departing istock sales.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: How was your 2011? (Read 11547 times)

Anyka

SNP

gostwyck

aeonf

Equus

PaulieWalnuts

wut

gostwyck

Moonb007

PaulieWalnuts

wut

ShadySue

SNP

PaulieWalnuts

wut

wut

PaulieWalnuts

luissantos84

Pixart

PaulieWalnuts

qwerty

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors