MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

What do you earn per photo per year across all agencies?

<$1 per photo per year
29 (19%)
$1-2 per photo per year
22 (14.4%)
$2-3 per photo per year
15 (9.8%)
$3-4 per photo per year
14 (9.2%)
$4-5 per photo per year
11 (7.2%)
$5-6 per photo per year
10 (6.5%)
$6-7 per photo per year
10 (6.5%)
$7-8 per photo per year
6 (3.9%)
$8-9 per photo per year
4 (2.6%)
$10-$20 per photo per year
19 (12.4%)
$20-$30 per photo per year
5 (3.3%)
$30-$40 per photo per year
0 (0%)
$40-$50 per photo per year
1 (0.7%)
$50-$60 per photo per year
1 (0.7%)
$60-$70 per photo per year
0 (0%)
$70-$80 per photo per year
1 (0.7%)
$80-$90 per photo per year
1 (0.7%)
$90-$100 per photo per year
0 (0%)
>$100 per photo per year
4 (2.6%)

Total Members Voted: 148

Author Topic: Poll - Earning per photo per year  (Read 22211 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 21, 2016, 01:41 »
0
I was looking at this other thread
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/you-are-able-to-say-the-values-of-their-income-each-month/msg444614/?topicseen#new

And decided to make a poll to see how much money everyone is earning in general on a per photo basis, ignoring portfolio size, and ignoring subject matter in portfolio. 


« Reply #1 on: February 21, 2016, 13:27 »
0
you need more options above $10/year ;)

« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2016, 13:39 »
0
By request I updated the poll allow even more options.

« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2016, 14:00 »
+2
depends on your strategy -- if you submit to agencies that accept most images but rarely make any sales, $ will be low.  illustrations or images?  including footage?

I combine all types of images and footage in my tracking, since i'm more interested in overall $ earned  on my work, rather than RPI or DPI

« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2016, 18:29 »
+1
you need more options above $10/year ;)

And more below.  :(

« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2016, 00:33 »
+2
Someones deluding themselves they make $70-80 average per photo a year

« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2016, 01:47 »
+4
Someones deluding themselves they make $70-80 average per photo a year

It's possible if someone keeps best selling photo and delete all others  ;)

« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2016, 09:07 »
0
Someones deluding themselves they make $70-80 average per photo a year

It's possible if someone keeps best selling photo and delete all others  ;)
exactly which is why this is not a helpful stat we could all improve our earnings per images by deleting low sellers - but it wouldn't increase our earnings

« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2016, 09:16 »
+1
from results it looks like some people really earn less then a dollar per photo per year?

so someone has 2000 images, across 5 or more agencies and earn less then 2000 dollars per year?

and still do microstock?

wow, looks like they need to change their style or IDK... profession?

« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2016, 10:16 »
+3
from results it looks like some people really earn less then a dollar per photo per year?

so someone has 2000 images, across 5 or more agencies and earn less then 2000 dollars per year?

and still do microstock?

wow, looks like they need to change their style or IDK... profession?

On the same time, $2000/year can be more than the average income in some countries.

« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2016, 10:19 »
+2
from results it looks like some people really earn less then a dollar per photo per year?

so someone has 2000 images, across 5 or more agencies and earn less then 2000 dollars per year?

and still do microstock?

wow, looks like they need to change their style or IDK... profession?
Shelf life of images is quite short. If someone stopped or slowed uploading 2 or 3 years ago their return will have ground to a near hault
« Last Edit: February 29, 2016, 12:56 by Justanotherphotographer »

« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2016, 10:58 »
+1
from results it looks like some people really earn less then a dollar per photo per year?

so someone has 2000 images, across 5 or more agencies and earn less then 2000 dollars per year?

and still do microstock?

wow, looks like they need to change their style or IDK... profession?
Depends on how long they spent processing the images and spent on producing them.

« Reply #12 on: February 23, 2016, 11:11 »
+1
from results it looks like some people really earn less then a dollar per photo per year?

so someone has 2000 images, across 5 or more agencies and earn less then 2000 dollars per year?

and still do microstock?

wow, looks like they need to change their style or IDK... profession?
Shelf life of images is quite short. If someone stopped or slowed uploading 2 or 3 years ago their return will have ground to a near haul.
My experience doesn't reflect that some of my images of 5 years ago still sell well and perhaps more surprisingly some of my old images come from nowhere and start selling for the first time. I do suspect though if you stopped uploading you would sink rapidly

« Reply #13 on: February 23, 2016, 11:17 »
0
from results it looks like some people really earn less then a dollar per photo per year?

so someone has 2000 images, across 5 or more agencies and earn less then 2000 dollars per year?

and still do microstock?

wow, looks like they need to change their style or IDK... profession?

On the same time, $2000/year can be more than the average income in some countries.

it's about 166 dollars monthly with about 2k images

ok for hobby, but with 2000 images/vectors and those earnings... i don't know. very few countries in the world have such small income.

@Justanotherphotographer agree with that... if someone stop producing, it can slowly drop in a few years.

@Pauws99 i talk about approved images already online.

« Reply #14 on: February 23, 2016, 12:08 »
0
from results it looks like some people really earn less then a dollar per photo per year?

so someone has 2000 images, across 5 or more agencies and earn less then 2000 dollars per year?

and still do microstock?



wow, looks like they need to change their style or IDK... profession?

On the same time, $2000/year can be more than the average income in some countries.

it's about 166 dollars monthly with about 2k images

ok for hobby, but with 2000 images/vectors and those earnings... i don't know. very few countries in the world have such small income.

@Justanotherphotographer agree with that... if someone stop producing, it can slowly drop in a few years.

@Pauws99 i talk about approved images already online.

Who says they do it full time if its 2000 images you already have and just need to keyword them it might be a nice sideline....you make too many assumptions.

« Reply #15 on: February 23, 2016, 12:35 »
+1
from results it looks like some people really earn less then a dollar per photo per year?

so someone has 2000 images, across 5 or more agencies and earn less then 2000 dollars per year?

and still do microstock?



wow, looks like they need to change their style or IDK... profession?

On the same time, $2000/year can be more than the average income in some countries.

it's about 166 dollars monthly with about 2k images

ok for hobby, but with 2000 images/vectors and those earnings... i don't know. very few countries in the world have such small income.

@Justanotherphotographer agree with that... if someone stop producing, it can slowly drop in a few years.

@Pauws99 i talk about approved images already online.

Who says they do it full time if its 2000 images you already have and just need to keyword them it might be a nice sideline....you make too many assumptions.

Me?  You started to talk about processing, keywording, average income. I only told that i mean it is just too little to earn less then dolar per image per year in microstock . And yes it is.

« Reply #16 on: February 23, 2016, 12:38 »
+3
And I say no its not it depends..........the person earning can decide without you telling them ;-)


« Reply #17 on: February 23, 2016, 12:44 »
0
Someones deluding themselves they make $70-80 average per photo a year

It can be real if that person only sells videos.

« Reply #18 on: February 23, 2016, 12:46 »
+1
And I say no its not it depends..........the person earning can decide without you telling them ;-)

1 dolar is one dolar everywhere. It doesnt have anything with prices and what you can buy with one dolar in Japan or Bangladesh. I am saying that if me and you work similar or same job, selling our products for same price and for example you earn 10  times more, i guess i would need to rethink my subjects, processing,  style as something isnt right.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #19 on: February 23, 2016, 13:18 »
0
The poll is only for earnings, not profit, so tells very little.
Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity.

Also where you live can make a huge difference as to what is available. It's no use fretting about your $2 per image for your images of Timbuktoo if I earn 50c per image but live in Bora Bora.
Even if I move to Timbuktoo, I'll probably just be splitting your earnings at best.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 16:29 by ShadySue »

« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2016, 13:42 »
+3
Its only one stat you need more to make a judgement. For example person a spends 5 mins producing each picture and does landscapes. He gets a dollar per pic His Net income is $2,000 per annum for 167 hrs work so $12 per hour.

person b spends an hour on each picture and shoots models spending $1000 per annuum. He makes $5 per picture.
His income is $10,000 less $1,000 expenses $9,000 for 2000 hours work  making $4.50 per hour.

Over time person b would catch up if the two portfolios remained "current" so you would need to factor in the lifespan of pictures. It MAY be that landscapes actually last longer.

These may be extreme for illustrative purposes but to understand a business model you need more that one stat.



« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2016, 16:10 »
0
Its only one stat you need more to make a judgement. For example person a spends 5 mins producing each picture and does landscapes. He gets a dollar per pic His Net income is $2,000 per annum for 167 hrs work so $12 per hour.

person b spends an hour on each picture and shoots models spending $1000 per annuum. He makes $5 per picture.
His income is $10,000 less $1,000 expenses $9,000 for 2000 hours work  making $4.50 per hour.

Over time person b would catch up if the two portfolios remained "current" so you would need to factor in the lifespan of pictures. It MAY be that landscapes actually last longer.

These may be extreme for illustrative purposes but to understand a business model you need more that one stat.

as ShadySue said, this topic is about earning, not profit.

If we take too many examples we can also said that landscape means travel expenses (not in case if someone only take snapshot 20 km away from his home) that can go much higher then 3 hours model shooting or even more if photographer is model him/herself (some do that too).

I still believe that contributor with good commercial sense and technical quality is closer to earn 0.5-1 dollar per image monthly (from all agencies) not per year.




« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2016, 16:28 »
0

If we take too many examples we can also said that landscape means travel expenses (not in case if someone only take snapshot 20 km away from his home) that can go much higher then 3 hours model shooting or even more if photographer is model him/herself (some do that too).

You bet!
And often it takes waking up at 2:00am, it takes detailed planning and pre-scouting, it takes driving for hours to catch the sunrise in the right place. And it takes re-drives if the weather is not right that day.
Add to that several hours of careful post processing to make that photo pop.

« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2016, 16:42 »
0
You really don't seem to get it ....yes you can spend hours on a single pic and get a high return and you can spend minutes and get a lower return for high volume both are valid if they produce a profit.

Think I will stop now............
« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 16:44 by Pauws99 »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #24 on: February 23, 2016, 16:47 »
0
[quote author=Pauws99 link=topic=26844.msg446092#msg446092
If we take too many examples we can also said that landscape means travel expenses (not in case if someone only take snapshot 20 km away from his home) that can go much higher then 3 hours model shooting or even more if photographer is model him/herself (some do that too).
The landscape photo might be where the tog was going anyway, so cost is only time taken. It would hardly be worthwhile nowadays to make a trip specially for microstock.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
7516 Views
Last post May 08, 2008, 16:18
by leaf
9 Replies
3846 Views
Last post September 18, 2009, 21:23
by click_click
0 Replies
2224 Views
Last post February 04, 2018, 10:54
by YadaYadaYada
1 Replies
2526 Views
Last post April 25, 2019, 10:54
by StanRohrer
44 Replies
5565 Views
Last post March 08, 2021, 08:29
by blvdone

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle