If I find 2021 I'll update. Not that this is high science, but it might be interesting to watch?

Site    Earnings Rating January 2020 vs 2022 January numbers

Shutterstock    73.7   51.6
AdobeStock      50.5   55.7 
iStock          23.9   26.6
IS exclusive    64.3   69
Pond5           14     10.1
Alamy           10.7   12.6
123RF           6.4    5.6
Dreamstime      4.6    4.9

If I find 2021 I'll update. Not that this is high science, but it might be interesting to watch?

Site    Earnings Rating January 2020 vs 2022 January numbers

Shutterstock    73.7   51.6
AdobeStock      50.5   55.7 
iStock          23.9   26.6
IS exclusive    64.3   69
Pond5           14     10.1
Alamy           10.7   12.6
123RF           6.4    5.6
Dreamstime      4.6    4.9

Pete, can you explain to others, especially the new people, exactly what those numbers mean?

We spoke about it once and I recall you said, its a percentage of $500.

So for example, AS 55.7 means the average month earnings of contributors who participated in the poll = $278.50 (500 x 55.7%)

Is that correct?

Hi Wilm :-)

Those numbers are too low for average revenue. There are some high earners on here.

Unless they have changed it in recent years, I am fairly sure its a percentage of $500.

Hopefully, Pete, Leaf or a Diamond member can confirm or explain.

The thing is, there is a lot of top earners, but there's probably also a loooooooooooooooooot more very low to no earners and beginning contributors inspired by the idea of big earnings and income by the likes of this (below) who shortly thereafter abandon their ports... that it drags down the average monthly earnings per contributor.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kqdwkm-A1k

Quote from: Annie on January 05, 2022, 18:32

Hi Wilm :-)

Those numbers are too low for average revenue. There are some high earners on here.

Unless they have changed it in recent years, I am fairly sure its a percentage of $500.

Hopefully, Pete, Leaf or a Diamond member can confirm or explain.

Hello Annie, 

I'm not so sure about that.

In 2019, shutterstock paid $US 164,000,000 to contributors. With the introduction of the new revenue structure, I expect it may have been just as much or even less in 2020.
(Unfortunately, shutterstock did not publish this figure in 2020. Then you could see how much the new revenue structure has cost us contributors).

In 2020, there were 1,600,000 contributors.

The numbers are in the 2019 and 2020 annual reports.

On average, each contributor earned US$100 per year from shutterstock. That's $8 a month.

Yes, that's true, Wilm. But I meant there's a lot of high earners here on the MSG forum - the people most likely to vote on this Microstock Poll, not all 1.6m contributors.

Pete, help! (lol)

Anyway, the top site was an arbitrary constant making year on year comparisons pointless in terms of absolute earnings.  It was orginally 100 for the top site so if the next site was 50 you knew people were typically making half as much on that site.

https://www.microstockgroup.com/site-related/why-is-the-shutterstock-ranking-not-100-anymore/

So in Pete�s example it shows people on average are making more similar amounts on SS and AS then they were in 2020 but not necessarily less at SS as an absolute number, unless the method changed again since 2012.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on January 06, 2022, 06:24

Quote from: Annie on January 06, 2022, 05:08

Yes, that's true, Wilm. But I meant there's a lot of high earners here on the MSG forum - the people most likely to vote on this Microstock Poll, not all 1.6m contributors.

Pete, help! (lol)

I am really not sure if that's true. There's a couple, but I am always surprised by how often people who post here regularly and I assumed did this for a living (or even have blogs and channels devoted to the industry) say things like �I had an EL on SS so that made a big difference/ doubled my income for the month�.

There�s a lot of people who post enthusiastically because this is a hobby they are passionate about, rather than because they are big earners or pros. Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all but it can be misleading.

same with people not meeting the second level threshold at Alamy, which i would have expected would be a minimum for someone who took time to upload there for years. Even with 20% drop in gross fees, that still means they were making less than $150 a year before.  again nothing wrong,

True, true, true, we're sometimes playing different games at different levels and in a different business or some are working at a hobby. I'll answer for myself, as a hobbyist, Alamy last year =  $303.53 but with the dropping prices and commissions, I don't expect to have made the $250 needed to keep the 40% level. If I'm looking at my average earnings, and months Etc. I tend to discount the rare and occasional EL I might get on SS. It's not reliable and I agree, that some people who have big swings, are getting that, because of a big sale, that throws the averages and data off.

That's why RPD isn't my favorite statistic, unless I only count sales that don't include the one "Big One" here and there. I like to see what's real, instead of the exceptions? Even RPI is flawed, as I could just delete the non-selling failures and have a great looking number, which is make believe.

Now about the poll and what I think I know. From memory, Leaf was using real numbers in the early years, and based everything off the top site as 100 and everything below was then a relative number. Later he changed it to 5 points for every dollar. If the sites shows 10 then you might expect to make $50 a month. Even that is not an exact number.

Before a number shows on the right, 50 people have to enter their data. If you hover over Canva right now, as an example, 12 people voted and the average is 16.8 that could change any time, but without 50 votes, you won't see that.

I'm not running down the poll but just going to point out some easy statistical flaws. It's on a volunteer basis. Right there, it's not impartial and only includes people who want to contribute. There's no cross checking for accuracy. If I liked Agency X and wanted to boost their appearance, I could put in double what I make. And if I didn't like Agency Z I could have $0 earnings every month, even if I had closed my account, because that's a way to get some revenge and make them look bad.

An agency that wanted to look good, like a new one, could have shills voting to make their earnings look great and attract new users.

While the poll is statistically flawed, it is relative, so assuming that aside from all the questions about data, most people are putting in real numbers, it's relative.

Another problem that someone above pointed out, people who come here are active and care. Whether that means someone like me who has a hobby and likes the extra income, or someone very serious who lives from their work. I don't take the poll, because I'd just bring the numbers down.  But lets look at who does? If the people here are serious and that's why they read here and maybe many more people who aren't don't come here... the poll will reflect numbers for active and more serious artists.

I have some past information which has aged off into time, but back when we could see what people were making on iStock, numbers and downloads, the poll here showed me that the poll here and the forum, represented the top 5% of all microstock contributors. That fits well with the 100 million people who joined and never sold one image or the 60 million who signed up and never did much, maybe never made payout, or the hobby people like myself who keep contributing in small numbers, year after year.

The poll isn't what someone can expect, and isn't what someone new will make, it is what someone who's serious and has been established for some time, might make.

For a hopefully fair example of that, right now 61 people voted that they make around $30 a month on DT. That's the top people with good collections, maybe thousands of images. Not what someone new will make after a few years. Not me, and not the average person, but the top people.

Old fun, I dropped this. Here's the most recent version (I think?) Some of these places are gone. Something else is that less and less have the 50 votes. Look at how the numbers have been dropping for earnings at some of them.



I hope that answered some questions and I hope if I missed something or have something wrong, that someone will correct that.

Yes, that's true, Wilm. But I meant there's a lot of high earners here on the MSG forum - the people most likely to vote on this Microstock Poll, not all 1.6m contributors.

Pete, help! (lol)

Another old one. Not mine, it was from someone who was data crawling SS somehow.



If this is correct, under 10% in 2016 had 1 or more images. Same source, in 2018 - 17877 contributors had over 1,000 images.

111,418 is a new member # registered in 2008 of the 128,623 total contributors registered at the end of the year.

A new Artist just uploaded image #2,101,861,852 (of her 5 images) she's contributor #319,430,041

Assuming that the numbers are continuous, that's how many contributors now.  319,430,041  ?

Quote from: ouatedeP on January 06, 2022, 06:54

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on January 06, 2022, 06:24

Quote from: Annie on January 06, 2022, 05:08

Yes, that's true, Wilm. But I meant there's a lot of high earners here on the MSG forum - the people most likely to vote on this Microstock Poll, not all 1.6m contributors.

Pete, help! (lol)

I am really not sure if that's true. There's a couple, but I am always surprised by how often people who post here regularly and I assumed did this for a living (or even have blogs and channels devoted to the industry) say things like �I had an EL on SS so that made a big difference/ doubled my income for the month�.

There�s a lot of people who post enthusiastically because this is a hobby they are passionate about, rather than because they are big earners or pros. Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all but it can be misleading.

same with people not meeting the second level threshold at Alamy, which i would have expected would be a minimum for someone who took time to upload there for years. Even with 20% drop in gross fees, that still means they were making less than $150 a year before.  again nothing wrong,

True, true, true, we're sometimes playing different games at different levels and in a different business or some are working at a hobby. I'll answer for myself, as a hobbyist, Alamy last year =  $303.53 but with the dropping prices and commissions, I don't expect to have made the $250 needed to keep the 40% level. If I'm looking at my average earnings, and months Etc. I tend to discount the rare and occasional EL I might get on SS. It's not reliable and I agree, that some people who have big swings, are getting that, because of a big sale, that throws the averages and data off.

That's why RPD isn't my favorite statistic, unless I only count sales that don't include the one "Big One" here and there. I like to see what's real, instead of the exceptions? Even RPI is flawed, as I could just delete the non-selling failures and have a great looking number, which is make believe.

Now about the poll and what I think I know. From memory, Leaf was using real numbers in the early years, and based everything off the top site as 100 and everything below was then a relative number. Later he changed it to 5 points for every dollar. If the sites shows 10 then you might expect to make $50 a month. Even that is not an exact number.

Before a number shows on the right, 50 people have to enter their data. If you hover over Canva right now, as an example, 12 people voted and the average is 16.8 that could change any time, but without 50 votes, you won't see that.

I'm not running down the poll but just going to point out some easy statistical flaws. It's on a volunteer basis. Right there, it's not impartial and only includes people who want to contribute. There's no cross checking for accuracy. If I liked Agency X and wanted to boost their appearance, I could put in double what I make. And if I didn't like Agency Z I could have $0 earnings every month, even if I had closed my account, because that's a way to get some revenge and make them look bad.

An agency that wanted to look good, like a new one, could have shills voting to make their earnings look great and attract new users.

While the poll is statistically flawed, it is relative, so assuming that aside from all the questions about data, most people are putting in real numbers, it's relative.

Another problem that someone above pointed out, people who come here are active and care. Whether that means someone like me who has a hobby and likes the extra income, or someone very serious who lives from their work. I don't take the poll, because I'd just bring the numbers down.  But lets look at who does? If the people here are serious and that's why they read here and maybe many more people who aren't don't come here... the poll will reflect numbers for active and more serious artists.

I have some past information which has aged off into time, but back when we could see what people were making on iStock, numbers and downloads, the poll here showed me that the poll here and the forum, represented the top 5% of all microstock contributors. That fits well with the 100 million people who joined and never sold one image or the 60 million who signed up and never did much, maybe never made payout, or the hobby people like myself who keep contributing in small numbers, year after year.

The poll isn't what someone can expect, and isn't what someone new will make, it is what someone who's serious and has been established for some time, might make.

For a hopefully fair example of that, right now 61 people voted that they make around $30 a month on DT. That's the top people with good collections, maybe thousands of images. Not what someone new will make after a few years. Not me, and not the average person, but the top people.

Old fun, I dropped this. Here's the most recent version (I think?) Some of these places are gone. Something else is that less and less have the 50 votes. Look at how the numbers have been dropping for earnings at some of them.



I hope that answered some questions and I hope if I missed something or have something wrong, that someone will correct that.

Thanks for your detailed response, Pete.

Of course, numbers can be cheated. And of course the numbers are not necessarily correct. Not today and not many years ago.

But from your screenshot, it still paints an interesting and sad picture.

The way it looks to me, there is only one agency left with a positive trend. And that is not a good omen for the microstock business.

Is it possible that in your table contributors were confused with paying users, Pete? The difference between 1.6 million and 190 K is just too big for me...

These are the numbers of contributors of Shutterstock through the years:

And in this link (https://content.shutterstock.com/investor-report/index.html#shutterstock-by-the-numbers) there is more useful information about what type of customers they have, number of images etc..

Is it possible that in your table contributors were confused with paying users, Pete? The difference between 1.6 million and 190 K is just too big for me...

I took the number from SS and the new members actual ID number. Of course if people sign up and leave, that number will be lower. But here it is again...

A new Artist just uploaded image #2,101,861,852 (of her 5 images) she's contributor #319,430,041
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Nina+Markevceva

319,430,041 people have opened contributor accounts.  No claim as to the actual number who still have an account or the actual number of images, such as Over One. That's why I used the people with 1,000 in 2018 as a fair representation of how many active artists the agency actually had. Some of those could have been dormant accounts, so none of this is perfect science or numbers, just approximate.

Go to your landing page on SS/Dashboard, click Image Portfolio, what's the number after your name? "rid=###,### for example. Look at the list... total registered contributors. Your ID should match the year you joined?



If I found the right WILM 437578 you joined in 2012? Did I pass? 

My only claim is, account numbers assigned and I'm assuming they are consecutive and have been for years, and that one of the newest is, 319,430,041, so I've concluded that, that's how many people have signed up for an account. To be fair, Jon Oringer is account #81, so the number isn't precise.

Quote from: Wilm on January 07, 2022, 03:59

Is it possible that in your table contributors were confused with paying users, Pete? The difference between 1.6 million and 190 K is just too big for me...

I took the number from SS and the new members actual ID number. Of course if people sign up and leave, that number will be lower. But here it is again...

A new Artist just uploaded image #2,101,861,852 (of her 5 images) she's contributor #319,430,041
https://www.shutterstock.com/g/Nina+Markevceva

319,430,041 people have opened contributor accounts.  No claim as to the actual number who still have an account or the actual number of images, such as Over One. That's why I used the people with 1,000 in 2018 as a fair representation of how many active artists the agency actually had. Some of those could have been dormant accounts, so none of this is perfect science or numbers, just approximate.

Go to your landing page on SS/Dashboard, click Image Portfolio, what's the number after your name? "rid=###,### for example. Look at the list... total registered contributors. Your ID should match the year you joined?



If I found the right WILM 437578 you joined in 2012? Did I pass? 

My only claim is, account numbers assigned and I'm assuming they are consecutive and have been for years, and that one of the newest is, 319,430,041, so I've concluded that, that's how many people have signed up for an account. To be fair, Jon Oringer is account #81, so the number isn't precise.

I started at shutterstock in the middle of November 2010, Pete.

And it was a great time that I will never forget!