Author Topic: What do you expect to make from a MicroStock Site? (Read 7955 times)

PhotoSales · « **on:** June 09, 2010, 01:51 »

What kind of money do people expect in reality to make from micro stock photography sites?

Just trying to get some kind of idea about the expectations out there from people. I know it would be really nice to make heaps, but im talking reality here......

Thanks for your feedback.

sharpshot · « **Reply #1 on:** June 09, 2010, 02:09 »

A decent portfolio can make $1 per image per month when spread across the best sites, most people will make less and a small percentage will make much more. Knowing how much someone else can make doesn't help much, it varies so much. Some people have big expenses while others work on a tight budget. It is going to be hard for anyone starting now, there is a lot of competition. The best thing to do is put a portfolio of at least 500 images on the top 4 sites and see for yourself.

Some of the lower earning sites aren't worth using until you are making regular payouts from the top 4 sites but they do make a difference for me.

PaulieWalnuts · « **Reply #2 on:** June 09, 2010, 06:20 »

From the stats I've seen most newer or inexperienced people seem to be making 25 cents per image per month or less.

More experienced people seem to be making $1 PIPM or a little more.

I'm guessing the average is 50 cents PIPM.

So, 50 cents PIPM means 100 images accross multiple sites would make $50 per month.

It really depends on the quality of the images and some luck.

cathyslife · « **Reply #3 on:** June 09, 2010, 08:16 »

I would be happy to earn between $.50-$1.00 PIPM across the sites I contribute to. I would be happy if, as images gained in popularity and increases in downloads, I earned more per image on a consistent basis across the sites. For my part, I would expect that I would keep improving my work and submitting more saleable images that are technically correct.

When I decided to submit to microstock, I expected to make enough money to pay for my equipment purchases while at the same time allow me to gain shooting experience. My expectations have been met in that area. I never viewed microstock as a long-term money-making solution. I always expected that I would move on to other ways to make money in photography, such as product photography, food photography and portraits.

At the rate the sites are accepting contributors and images and at the rate they are trying to decrease commissions and increase their own bottom lines, I don't think the current business models are "sustainable" (to use IS's term) for even the best photographers.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #4 on:** June 09, 2010, 08:56 »

1 billyon dollars!

Quote

What kind of money do people expect in reality to make from micro stock photography sites?

Just trying to get some kind of idea about the expectations out there from people. I know it would be really nice to make heaps, but im talking reality here......

Why? Are you looking to submit, or start a new site to contribute to?

Jack Schiffer · « **Reply #5 on:** June 09, 2010, 08:59 »

Hundred a month from each agency would be nice.
That would allow me to upgrade my equipment to look for a fulltime photography job or freelance.

Dreamframer · « **Reply #6 on:** June 09, 2010, 10:53 »

When you say "microstock site" do you mean owning a microstock site, or submitting images as a photographer to one microstock site??

cthoman · « **Reply #7 on:** June 09, 2010, 11:02 »

Quote from: PhotoSales on June 09, 2010, 01:51

What kind of money do people expect in reality to make from micro stock photography sites?

I think it varies from site to site. The $1 per image across all the sites is a good figure, but some of the smaller sites stop growing with more images. So, it makes it harder to calculate them all together.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 09, 2010, 11:10 »

it depends also on the gear/equipment you have or going to buy..! expenses are also very important, keeping the costs really low is the goal, I am talking in my personal experience once my expenses are really really low..

lefty · « **Reply #9 on:** June 09, 2010, 11:12 »

Quote from: cthoman on June 09, 2010, 11:02

Quote from: PhotoSales on June 09, 2010, 01:51
What kind of money do people expect in reality to make from micro stock photography sites?

I think it varies from site to site. The $1 per image across all the sites is a good figure, but some of the smaller sites stop growing with more images. So, it makes it harder to calculate them all together.

Honestly, the possibility ended after subscription .
I think cthoman and PhotoSales are correct. Strangely, you make more money when you are new and when you increase your collection suddenly you cannot find your picture in the keyword anymore.
Is this evident that the agency put new contributor on front page?
But this is only my personal observation.

bobkeenan · « **Reply #10 on:** June 09, 2010, 11:37 »

My goal is to make enough to afford my camera habit. For me that would be $3-6K per year.

My first year I made about $700. Its not much compared to all of the effort I put into it. But this is primarily a hobby for me. I keep learning stuff every day. And I get a real kick when I make a larger sale.

My sales are still increasing as long as I keep feeding the little monsters. Its slower that I thought it would happen, but I feel pretty confident that I will get to my goal within a few more years.

That's not bad considering that I ONLY put in effort when its fun and whenever its not fun... I stop.

I think it would be really tough to make any sort of living at this.

cthoman · « **Reply #11 on:** June 09, 2010, 11:40 »

Quote from: lefty on June 09, 2010, 11:12

I think cthoman and PhotoSales are correct. Strangely, you make more money when you are new and when you increase your collection suddenly you cannot find your picture in the keyword anymore.
Is this evident that the agency put new contributor on front page?
But this is only my personal observation.

Actually, I was talking about my RPI going down at smaller agencies as my portfolio gets bigger. Some of them only have so many customers, so increasing your portfolio doesn't always increase your exposure. My overall earnings have been going up as my portfolio has gotten bigger.

louoates · « **Reply #12 on:** June 09, 2010, 12:23 »

I agree with the $1 per image/month across all the sites to be reasonable. I've been at microstock for a bit over five years so it works that way for my entire portfolio. BUT, if I took the images submitted during only the last 3 years, those would be closer to $2/month/image. That's because I've learned what not to submit and what may be better stock sellers.

cidepix · « **Reply #13 on:** June 09, 2010, 13:10 »

Quote from: PhotoSales on June 09, 2010, 01:51

I know it would be really nice to make heaps, but im talking reality here......

Your reality? or mine?

funny question because how much I make will have nothing to do with how much you make. Any answer is pointless..

If I make 5 thousand a month it doesn't mean you will make it too. It also doesn't mean making 5 thousand is unrealistic. It is pretty realistic for many, and equally utopic for others.

Good day!

luissantos84 · « **Reply #14 on:** June 09, 2010, 13:17 »

Quote from: cidepix on June 09, 2010, 13:10

Quote from: PhotoSales on June 09, 2010, 01:51
I know it would be really nice to make heaps, but im talking reality here......

Your reality? or mine?

funny question because how much I make will have nothing to do with how much you make. Any answer is pointless..

If I make 5 thousand a month it doesn't mean you will make it too. It also doesn't mean making 5 thousand is unrealistic. It is pretty realistic for many, and equally utopic for others.

Good day!

exactly, it's all about the effort just like everything in life!

lefty · « **Reply #15 on:** June 09, 2010, 13:41 »

Quote from: cthoman on June 09, 2010, 11:40

Quote from: lefty on June 09, 2010, 11:12
I think cthoman and PhotoSales are correct. Strangely, you make more money when you are new and when you increase your collection suddenly you cannot find your picture in the keyword anymore.
Is this evident that the agency put new contributor on front page?
But this is only my personal observation.

Actually, I was talking about my RPI going down at smaller agencies as my portfolio gets bigger. Some of them only have so many customers, so increasing your portfolio doesn't always increase your exposure. My overall earnings have been going up as my portfolio has gotten bigger.

OK, now that bring another question to you cthoman.
Can it be possible to make bigger income and RPI when you eliminate all low paying agencies and maybe only keep one. You give 100% time to agency #1 , your portfolio is bigger faster , you feed monster.
So your RPI increase with single agency that is historical best performer and money maker for you.

cascoly · « **Reply #16 on:** June 09, 2010, 14:15 »

Quote from: lefty on June 09, 2010, 13:41

OK, now that bring another question to you cthoman.
Can it be possible to make bigger income and RPI when you eliminate all low paying agencies and maybe only keep one. You give 100% time to agency #1 , your portfolio is bigger faster , you feed monster.
So your RPI increase with single agency that is historical best performer and money maker for you.

that would only be true if your best performer would outperform all others if you went exclusive; plus you're betting that;'s today's results will apply tomorrow

one furhter consideration in RPI guesswork - the type of image you take will have a big effect - eg, if you're shooting flowers, expect a very low return

steve

cthoman · « **Reply #17 on:** June 09, 2010, 14:27 »

Quote from: lefty on June 09, 2010, 13:41

OK, now that bring another question to you cthoman.
Can it be possible to make bigger income and RPI when you eliminate all low paying agencies and maybe only keep one. You give 100% time to agency #1 , your portfolio is bigger faster , you feed monster.
So your RPI increase with single agency that is historical best performer and money maker for you.

Definitely, I think iStock made exclusivity very tempting this year. I kind of hoped the other agencies would have had more of a response to it. Right now, I think there are three things holding me back from being a one agency man:

One, the transition would be financially painful. It would take me a while to get all my images up there to equal what I get from the rest. Two, I worry about rejections. I used to be golden there, but the policies have changed a little. Third, is opportunities. Maybe, I'm a dreamer, but I just think I'd be sacrificing some great opportunity.

It's funny. I almost wish they hadn't done the exclusive change because it made my decision harder.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #18 on:** June 09, 2010, 14:54 »

Quote from: PhotoSales on June 09, 2010, 01:51

What kind of money do people expect in reality to make from micro stock photography sites?

Just trying to get some kind of idea about the expectations out there from people. I know it would be really nice to make heaps, but im talking reality here......

Thanks for your feedback.

Peanuts because I'm sending in snapshots and self amusement, entertaining experiments with lighting. No models, nothing commercial or truly appropriate for the Micro market. I'm happy with anything I get. Not anywhere like the serious people who populate this site. But the part I enjoy is getting an idea and working out how to produce it. Mostly it's been a learning experience and like most others I've found that micro and the standards have improved my other work. That's a fringe benefit because it keeps me challenged to try new things and ways of taking images.

Considering the market and battle to the bottom, if sites paid a minimum of $1 per download, I'd be much happier than the 25c to 50c commissions that are more common. IS still averages four times what I get from SS per download, but SS still produces more income.

I shot breakfast one morning before the football playoffs. While I had the lights in place I borrowed someone's sandwich for a few quick snaps. Both are accepted and have sold. Didn't do well with the omelet,

but got one good shot of the toast...

Nothing like setting up in a sports bar lounge with flashes and umbrellas, which amuses my friends. "Hey can I borrow your Sushi for a few minutes, I promise not to touch it!"

Reminder to oneself: Always make sure the plate is free of any small particles and has no chips in it. Spotless! (these are not)

Point is, when I sell one of these for a buck, it makes double use and helps pay for the meal?

There you go, low expectations at their best.

lefty · « **Reply #19 on:** June 09, 2010, 15:23 »

Quote from: cthoman on June 09, 2010, 14:27

Quote from: lefty on June 09, 2010, 13:41
OK, now that bring another question to you cthoman.
Can it be possible to make bigger income and RPI when you eliminate all low paying agencies and maybe only keep one. You give 100% time to agency #1 , your portfolio is bigger faster , you feed monster.
So your RPI increase with single agency that is historical best performer and money maker for you.

Definitely, I think iStock made exclusivity very tempting this year. I kind of hoped the other agencies would have had more of a response to it. Right now, I think there are three things holding me back from being a one agency man:

One, the transition would be financially painful. It would take me a while to get all my images up there to equal what I get from the rest. Two, I worry about rejections. I used to be golden there, but the policies have changed a little. Third, is opportunities. Maybe, I'm a dreamer, but I just think I'd be sacrificing some great opportunity.

It's funny. I almost wish they hadn't done the exclusive change because it made my decision harder.

Thank you for reply Cthoman

No, no, I don't mean Declaration of Exclusiveness like with IStock.
Some sites still do not expect exclusivity, so it is not necessary for me or you to remove all images.
I am saying, maybe stop feeding everyone, and just keep feeding one beast. ie. the beast that by historical data provided the best earning.
This will cut down spreading too thinly and wasting time to upload to everyone. And the time saved will mean we feed this one beast regularly . That would work to increase our potential earning, that the other not so efficient sites fail to give us our return .
Did I explain correctly?

PhotoSales · « **Reply #20 on:** June 09, 2010, 18:22 »

Wow, thanks for all the responses you gave.

We run a stock site, with a NZ twist. We do not allow subscribers for downloading x amount of images for $xx.xx - we work on a per sale basis.

But, after reading through here, I am thinking a bit more now, perhaps there is something with offering subs on our site, I would need to get good feedback from the photographers about it, at the moment, they get $30 per digital image sold, so getting a drop down to $2 or $3 might be hard to swallow, however they will also get the higher turnover as well......

Food for thought anyway.

donding · « **Reply #21 on:** June 09, 2010, 19:19 »

Quote from: PhotoSales on June 09, 2010, 18:22

Wow, thanks for all the responses you gave.

We run a stock site, with a NZ twist. We do not allow subscribers for downloading x amount of images for $xx.xx - we work on a per sale basis.

But, after reading through here, I am thinking a bit more now, perhaps there is something with offering subs on our site, I would need to get good feedback from the photographers about it, at the moment, they get $30 per digital image sold, so getting a drop down to $2 or $3 might be hard to swallow, however they will also get the higher turnover as well......

Food for thought anyway.

Unless you want a stampede of mad photographers.....I wouldn't suggest sub sales. If you read the majority of posts on this forum, you will notice the thing that makes a microstock photographer madder than anything IS sub sales. That's what's breaking the industry. Think twice.

cthoman · « **Reply #22 on:** June 09, 2010, 20:42 »

Yeah, I thought we were talking from a contributor perspective to the regular microstock sites, so disregard everything I've said. Although, I'm sure most people do that anyway.

The subs thing might cause a riot with your contributors. Although, a subs model for higher priced stock art might be interesting. Not sure how to price it though. I guess a lot of it depends on what kind of licenses you are offering.

Sean Locke Photography · « **Reply #23 on:** June 09, 2010, 21:21 »

Quote from: PhotoSales on June 09, 2010, 18:22

We run a stock site, with a NZ twist. We do not allow subscribers for downloading x amount of images for $xx.xx - we work on a per sale basis.

But, after reading through here, I am thinking a bit more now, perhaps there is something with offering subs on our site, I would need to get good feedback from the photographers about it, at the moment, they get $30 per digital image sold, so getting a drop down to $2 or $3 might be hard to swallow, however they will also get the higher turnover as well......

Yeah, I had a feeling. ie., How low can we pay you before you drop out?

Eyedesign · « **Reply #24 on:** June 10, 2010, 05:31 »

The answer to that sjlocke is more then 0.25$ but not over 0.36$. Also offer 0.15$ to upload your best shots and you'll have people here killing each other to upload to his site.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: What do you expect to make from a MicroStock Site? (Read 7955 times)

PhotoSales

sharpshot

PaulieWalnuts

cathyslife

Sean Locke Photography

Jack Schiffer

Dreamframer

cthoman

luissantos84

lefty

bobkeenan

cthoman

louoates

cidepix

luissantos84

lefty

cascoly

cthoman

RacePhoto

lefty

PhotoSales

donding

cthoman

Sean Locke Photography

Eyedesign

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors