"The idea that if I don't shoot I still get $$$ coming in for doing nothing is the thing I like most in Microstock."

I don't agree with the part of doing nothing. You took the photos, processed them (professionally), uploaded (key worded) them, and they passed the high standards of the editors to get into their library. If that is 'Nothing' than I hate to see what you call 'Something' 

T

I think he means, if he stops now, the money keeps coming and he has to do nothing more for that.

A friend of a friend posted last night about being pilloried by a complete stranger on Facebook who had blocked her so she couldn't see what he was saying. She found out about it through friends who saw the posts. Trolls. The internet is a weird place. Although we can find out more than ever about people and their personal lives, ironically, it is also a very impersonal place, which seems to make some people feel they have carte blanche to lie and bully and attack people because the medium insulates them from suffering the consequences of their actions.

But to answer your question, for what it's worth, here's my experience: 

I've been shooting stock since late 2008, part-time.. Small ports: ~150 images on microstock ~ 650 on Alamy, so it contributes very little to my bottom line, however, though I have certainly grumbled about falling stock photo prices at Alamy, my first page photos at SS getting lost in the newest shuffle, and dismal months, when I look at year to year trends and particularly growth in the last two quarters, it has grown steadily and consistently every year.

Interestingly, my microstock $ grew noticeably even though I added very few new photos last year, Alamy grew less and I doubled my portfolio there last year, the opposite of Johnathan's experience.

And yet, at them moment, traditional stock is trumping micro for me.  I had my BME recently thanks to photos I licensed myself directly to various publishers. ("strong" is a relative term - I'm talking $500-$900/month in direct licensing for anywhere from 2 [my BME] to 4 photos in the last two months. Combined with what I earn from the agencies, it's encouraging but even if sales continue at this rate, stock will probably be a small percentage of total income. I have a couple thousand photos on my own website, initially built to advertise my portfolio for assignment work, so they're not all tagged to sell. Most people interested in licensing stock from me or buying prints call or email me to discuss specific terms of use anyway, whether the image they want to license is tagged for sale or not. Most sales there initially come from Google searches, some of those random hits have become regular clients. I license traditionally-priced photos on my site, so am considering setting up a Symbiostock site for microsales.

Realistically, I can't see shooting stock full time as a viable option until after I get through the 70,000 or so photos I've shot over the past six years (for assignments & more recently for stock ), editing them down to ~3,000-4,000 images while continuing to shoot new stuff, and most significantly, making a push to market my stock photos on my own.

I work as a freelance writer (corporate communications, SEO copy & magazine assignments) and an assignment photographer, and also sell some fine art through galleries. I started working as a freelancer a few years before I learned about stock, and have seen the market for assignment photography and print media change drastically too. I think the only thing all of us who want to make a living in a creative field can do is work on improving our craft, keep good records to see what's working and what isn't, and keep adapting to an ever-changing world.

The internet enabled me to quit my job and stay home with my daughter for several years, working part-time from home in a new profession. I took a huge cut in income (I used to be a trial attorney in NY) but it's been worth it to me to do work I love and have time with my family. As an empty-nester now, my goal is to build up my portfolio so it makes a good second income and something I can rely on to supplement our income when my husband and I retire. I mostly shoot lifestyle and products for assignments, and travel and concepts for stock, not the most lucrative for most people but travel images are my best stock sellers & it's work I love to do.

I was thinking about EmberMike's $100K. Despite the fact that averaged over seven years it is nowhere near enough to live on, personally, I think it's still something to brag about. I'm impressed. Some troll could sit there and say $100K/7 < $15K a year. Sometimes it is a matter of interpretation. Assuming, say, he made $100 year one, $1,000 year two ... $30Kyear six and $50K year seven, he could be on his way to making $100k a year and considering whether it's time to quit the day job. I never read his initial post, but assume he was either responding to a query about how have you done in stock so far? Or sharing his achievement of reaching the $100K goal. Either way, we should be encouraging each others successes here, whether we think it's large or small.

It's easy to criticize. I shoot for local publications who get freebies from people but still pay me for my work but I still get annoyed when someone is willing to give away their photos for a byline. Unfortunately, this is the reality of the world we are living in.  If a friend shows me something they got "published," I 'd be happy for them. If they gave away the photo for free I would encourage them to request payment in the future. But telling them nicely and giving them a clue how much they should ask for next time is far more likely to bring about that result than bashing them for hurting the photography business. The point is, are you on here for the sense of community, or for some other reason?

Not sure I really answered your question but I guess what you can take away from this is that as your income builds each year, you should look for trends. If the growth rate is consistent, even if SS is your best one month and DT the next and Alamy the next, over time you'll get a sense of what you need to do to get to the next level. For me, having a mix of micro and macro makes sense, because I realize I can use the same skills I use to pitch assignments to sell RM stock on my own, but I needed to have enough inventory before I could get to that point. And success on the macros requires a much larger portfolio, generating far fewer sales.  Being on the micros where I generally sell a few images a day, gave me a good sense of what sells. Until this year, micro always beat macro for me even though I put my better stuff on Alamy, and given the economy, I think I'd be crazy to only license traditional stock. Selling on my own is a lot more work, and somewhere down the line I won't want to spend so much time marketing, so keeping various agencies in the mix makes sense.

I have no idea of Mike's income but I will say he made at least 3 times that considering all agencies

if you still think that isn't enough to live I believe you shouldn't even start/continue doing microstock

Say it was 300K

$3571 gross per month.  Yes enough for a living.

But you shouldnt convert to euros because its a dollar pay in the US, so 3700 dollar monthly is not bad. Its like 3700 euro/m in Ireland.

Photography assignment/contract/retail work: 80 percent
Microstock, all sites: 20 percent

Yes. It helps, but it's not the end-all, be-all.

2% maybe less, and yes I'm a weekend shooter, I'll be working at the races this weekend and I did a three day last weekend. LOL

Is this going to be next on the list? 1) How many photos do you have on 2) How many sites. 3) What kind of camera do you use. 4) What's your RPI and RPD. 5) What percentage of your total income comes from Microstock? Is that the way it's going to be, or can someone have an opinion, regardless of the snooty little digs coming from someone who's a known liar and trying to build up his ego by discrediting others?

If so, someone needs to set the standards of images on sites, income percentage and years in the business, before someone else is allowed to have a personal opinion here?

ps By the same standards, anyone anonymous has no rights and no credibility, there's no way to tell if they even have one image. Right?

So I was looking at a thread on SS earlier about someone having a great (un-quantified) day, and folks chiming in about their various levels of double digit daily sales.  From where I sit, high double digit looks pretty good but, in hard cash, it's peanuts, probably a nice "extra" but no way could it be considered a living. 

Over here there is probably a fair percentage of actual pro submitters but I suspect a lot of us are what Lagereek would call weekend shooters.  I reckon MS accounts to about 2% compared to income from the day job and wonder, with all talk of BMEs on the one hand and angst about best match on the other, what the pattern of actual reliance on MS income is across the folks who post here.