pancakes

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 22735 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.

« Reply #25 on: February 23, 2016, 16:53 »
+1
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............

sorry, but I think all of people on this topic can see that I am not the one who don't know difference between earnings and profit.

« Reply #26 on: February 23, 2016, 16:56 »
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.
Some times I just can't walk away..........It seems some people consider it worthwhile no doubt they've crunched the numbers personally my stuff is local or when I go on holiday and I try to get it right in camera to minimise PP to spend more than a few minutes processing it would have to be something pretty amazing .....but really my point is without second guessing what the he person does we aren't in a position to judge.


« Reply #27 on: February 23, 2016, 16:57 »
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............

sorry, but I think all of people on this topic can see that I am not the one who don't know difference between earnings and profit.
Don't seem to remember you mentioning Costs? Sorry if I've misunderstood

« Reply #28 on: February 23, 2016, 17:09 »
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............

sorry, but I think all of people on this topic can see that I am not the one who don't know difference between earnings and profit.
Don't seem to remember you mentioning Costs? Sorry if I've misunderstood

you can read again if I was talking about expenses. I just answered someone who mentioned that.

ok. maybe i was to harsh in my fist comment, my english isn't the best, I was negatively surprised that some people earn less then 1000$ per year with 1000 images portfolio. It can mean from 80 to even 50 dollars per month (<1$)

that means someone with 1000 images earn for example 20 dollars on SS, 10 on IS, 10 on fotolia and maybe 10 on alamy and 5 on 123rf.

and many people answered that. (18 at the moment)



« Reply #29 on: February 23, 2016, 17:21 »
+1
Yes it doesn't seem a lot but what I'm trying to say is that without knowing the time and expense that goes in we don't know if it is  actually profitable. Of course its better if the return is higher but the reason I don't like this stat is that the easiest way to improve it is to remove your low sellers. I would be looking at looking at my annual income taking out any expenses estimating how many hours I spend then calculating my hourly rate. I would then look at how to improve it by producing more commercial images, producing more images in the same time, improving quality of images and reducing costs.

« Reply #30 on: February 23, 2016, 17:48 »
0

ok. maybe i was to harsh in my fist comment, my english isn't the best, I was negatively surprised that some people earn less then 1000$ per year with 1000 images portfolio. It can mean from 80 to even 50 dollars per month (<1$)

that means someone with 1000 images earn for example 20 dollars on SS, 10 on IS, 10 on fotolia and maybe 10 on alamy and 5 on 123rf.

I'm a bit confused now.. "1000 images portfolio" - does it mean a total amount of all images accross all agencies? Then it could mean 150 - 200 images at each agency (if 5-6 in total), then the income of "less than 1000$" sounds fair, kind of..

If someone earns 1$ per image or less but has a 1000 images portfolio at each of 5-6 ( in average) agencies then it means they earn up to 5000-6000$ per year?

Or did I get everything wrong? :)
« Last Edit: February 23, 2016, 17:51 by lanabyko »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #31 on: February 23, 2016, 17:56 »
0
If someone earns 1$ per image or less but has a 1000 images portfolio at each of 5-6 ( in average) agencies then it means they earn up to 5000-6000$ per year?
Only if the 1000 at each agency is a different 1000, so 5000 or 6000 images altogether.

« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2016, 18:10 »
+1
I read it as per photo no matter how many sites its on......but it may be others interpret it differently....ah the perils of stats. And really it should be per submitted photo as they cost just as much to produce........

« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2016, 18:35 »
0
I read it as per photo no matter how many sites its on......but it may be others interpret it differently....ah the perils of stats. And really it should be per submitted photo as they cost just as much to produce........

So, let's say you created 1000 photos, submitted it to 10 agencies, all of them accepted everywhere (hahaha), which means you have about 10,000 photos accross all agencies, and let's assume your income is 5000$ per year from all agencies..  Do you count it as 5$ per photo (5000$/1000 photos) or 0,5$ per photo (5000$/10,000 photos)?

I just think that many who voted here calculated things in different ways..

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2016, 18:44 »
+2
So, let's say you created 1000 photos, submitted it to 10 agencies, all of them accepted everywhere (hahaha), which means you have about 10,000 photos accross all agencies, and let's assume your income is 5000$ per year from all agencies..  Do you count it as 5$ per photo (5000$/1000 photos) or 0,5$ per photo (5000$/10,000 photos)?
I'd count that as $5 per image per year in total, as I have 1000 images and made $5,000.

« Reply #35 on: February 23, 2016, 18:49 »
0
So, let's say you created 1000 photos, submitted it to 10 agencies, all of them accepted everywhere (hahaha), which means you have about 10,000 photos accross all agencies, and let's assume your income is 5000$ per year from all agencies..  Do you count it as 5$ per photo (5000$/1000 photos) or 0,5$ per photo (5000$/10,000 photos)?
I'd count that as $5 per image per year in total, as I have 1000 images and made $5,000.

Right, that's what I think half of the voters did ;D

« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2016, 02:22 »
+1
I'd count it as $5 but without another poll we'll never know what everyone did :-\


« Reply #37 on: February 24, 2016, 03:06 »
+1
I also think as lanabyko. 1000 different images across 10 agencies is same as 1000 images on 5 agencies. It's 1000, not 10 000 or 5000.

But if someone have completely different set of images for RM (alamy) or something like that, it's another story.


ACS

« Reply #38 on: February 24, 2016, 08:03 »
+1
In 2015, only in SS, with 750 photos and 350 video clips (*); I made 2,4 USD per photo and 2,2 USD per video.

(*): Weighted average.

« Reply #39 on: February 24, 2016, 11:22 »
+3
So, let's say you created 1000 photos, submitted it to 10 agencies, all of them accepted everywhere (hahaha), which means you have about 10,000 photos accross all agencies, ......
I just think that many who voted here calculated things in different ways..

but that's exactly the problem - NO ONE has all their images accepted by all agencies -- instead you'll have different images for each agency;  I doubt that most people track which agency takes which image, so you'd need to track all images submitted

since there are so many sites that take most anything and sell almost nothing, it would be very difficult to produce even $1/image/year

conclusion - polls like this are statistically useless

« Reply #40 on: February 24, 2016, 11:32 »
+3
The important question is not earning per photo per year, but Earning per hour of work...

I mean, you can get a great photo/illustration and sell a lot, but this means more time of work, or you can just spend the same time generation 10-20 simple photos/illustrations selling of course less per image...

Some people here make 1 dollar per image, other more that 50 dollars... but who works more? and who really earn more?

« Reply #41 on: February 24, 2016, 12:39 »
0
The important question is not earning per photo per year, but Earning per hour of work...

I mean, you can get a great photo/illustration and sell a lot, but this means more time of work, or you can just spend the same time generation 10-20 simple photos/illustrations selling of course less per image...

Some people here make 1 dollar per image, other more that 50 dollars... but who works more? and who really earn more?
Yes  thats correct but need to take off any costs too

« Reply #42 on: February 24, 2016, 13:14 »
0
The important question is not earning per photo per year, but Earning per hour of work...

I mean, you can get a great photo/illustration and sell a lot, but this means more time of work, or you can just spend the same time generation 10-20 simple photos/illustrations selling of course less per image...

Some people here make 1 dollar per image, other more that 50 dollars... but who works more? and who really earn more?
Yes  thats correct but need to take off any costs too

I know that what i propose is almos impossible because we never really know how much time we work taking photos or creating illustration, and it will be a big job to take control of that... so compare number of images with earning is more easy and also a good method ;)

« Reply #43 on: February 24, 2016, 13:42 »
+1
Easier yes but pretty useless as a stat for comparison.  Of some use for looking at your own performance over time. (Actually it wouldn't be hard to record your own time...I don't do this as a business....but if I did this would be an essential for me
)

« Reply #44 on: February 28, 2016, 03:10 »
+2
I read it as per photo no matter how many sites its on......but it may be others interpret it differently....ah the perils of stats. And really it should be per submitted photo as they cost just as much to produce........

So, let's say you created 1000 photos, submitted it to 10 agencies, all of them accepted everywhere (hahaha), which means you have about 10,000 photos accross all agencies, and let's assume your income is 5000$ per year from all agencies..  Do you count it as 5$ per photo (5000$/1000 photos) or 0,5$ per photo (5000$/10,000 photos)?

I just think that many who voted here calculated things in different ways..
Agree with others. That is 1000 unique photos not 10000. I think most people would have calculated it that way.

« Reply #45 on: February 29, 2016, 12:50 »
+5


For anyone interested, I started in Microstock in May of 2007.

Today I have an average of 1321 unique still images across seven agencies: iStock, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Fotolia, 123RF, Canstock, Bigstock, and some old Stockxpert legacy. Its an average because of variance in acceptance/rejections between agencies, with the low as 990, and the high as 1829. In all there were 2097 unique images uploaded.

At the highest point I was averaging roughly about $8000 per year (2009) with probably less than one third the images I have today. iStock was then the highest payer for me.

Last year I earned  $3,788.62 for the 1321, so that comes out about $2.86 per.

Each year, actually each month, the total income drops. Theres just too many images out there anymore, and everyone pays less and less. I may have also just reached a limit on my competitive ability, talent, and patience.

So I quit uploading more than a year ago. The only agency that still pays for me is Shutterstock where I usually still earn more than $100 monthly, but out of the blue they began rejecting about 60-70% of my uploads about two years ago. About a third of my Shutterstock earnings are from extended sales, which may now also be in jeopardy.

Ironically, iStock (now Getty) was my biggest earner, but in the old days limited uploads to a painful extreme. iStock takes everything now, but no longer earns all that well.

So it just doesnt pay, for ME, to do anything more than sit back and collect until the trend one day winds down and runs out. It just takes too much time and effort to shoot, process, keyword, upload, and log. I probably only make a few dollars an hour for new image uploads, which actually dont sell as well as the solid old standards I uploaded years ago. Either the agencies that accept well dont pay, or those that pay hardly accept. At least for me.


This is a personal comment with respect to my own circumstances, and probably doesnt apply to everyone.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
7629 Views
Last post May 08, 2008, 16:18
by leaf
9 Replies
4014 Views
Last post September 18, 2009, 21:23
by click_click
0 Replies
2301 Views
Last post February 04, 2018, 10:54
by YadaYadaYada
1 Replies
2755 Views
Last post April 25, 2019, 10:54
by StanRohrer
44 Replies
6826 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