MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Envato Elements

Author Topic: Lise and Kelly in the New York Times  (Read 3943 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Istock News

« on: June 05, 2007, 10:28 »
Lise Gagné and Kelly Cline are featured in today"s Circuits section of the NY Times.  Have a look at some great coverage:  "When Are Photos Like Penny Stocks?  When They Sell."


« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2007, 11:05 »
Wow, LG makes $100,000 per year! 

Mr. Skernick has seen the value of his own work decrease, from a time when photographs were priced not just on their merit but on their intended use. He said he once sold a photograph that was used on a Brian Wilson album cover for $2,000. Today I would get $2 for the same use, he said.

$2?  He would get at least $20 enhanced license, wouldn't he? ;)

« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2007, 11:09 »
Depends who Brian Wilson is and how many albums he sold.

I thought the article was a bit fluffy.  More of a weekend lifestyle section than a mid week article.

I would have thought Stephen was making more?? Compare his numbers to Lisa's.

« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2007, 11:36 »
Depends who Brian Wilson is and how many albums he sold.

Think "Beach Boys"   ;D


(I think I'm getting old)  >:(

« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2007, 13:56 »
Pet Sounds was released before I was born but it is still one of my favourite albums.  Brian Wilson is a genius and he could have any of my photos on the cover of his album for the price of an EL and I would be happy.

I don't think many albums have a royalty free photo on the cover though.  They would buy rights managed, as they wouldn't want the same image being used for other things.

« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2007, 14:29 »
I think LG is being conservative about her income; she sells 100,000 pictures a year and being a diamond etc etc I reckon she'd be getting a higher average than $1; probably a lot higher.  I should think it's nearer $2.  Anyone can guess of course.

« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2007, 14:34 »
Agree she should be getting more than $1 per DL since she is on double the commission that I am on.  My guess is around $1.40 to $1.60 per DL.  What camera does she use?  She might even have some XXL sales. And some EL which I have never had at IS.

« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2007, 14:41 »
Uses a 16 MP Canon.  So yes, she's rocking  8)

« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2007, 16:24 »
yep, at $100,000+ in income / year I don't think she would be shooting with anything less.

I think the article is true in saying that microstock is definatly a great way to make an income, but a 'get rich quick scheme' it is not.  Anyone with over 3000 images online knows they had to work hard to get those images there.... especially if part of it was learning to use a camera :)

also an interesting contrast how in the first part of the article it is put forward that it is such good money that it is almost a 'get rich quick scheme' or 'too good to be true' and at the end of the article it gives the opinion that it is a horrible thing that isn't giving the photographer just wage for their photos/time.  I guess that shows you the two sides to the story.  Those who have tried it, and those who haven't.

« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2007, 16:55 »
I think for all of us it is good that the NYT covered the subject - free PR for our product. 

I also find the article somewhat more balanced than a number of articles published last year in various photography magazines, there the "get rich quickly and effortlessly" aspect was much more pronounced.  Cynic that I am, I assume that they did that deliberately so people go and buy expensive cameras which certainly pleased their main ad buyers: camera makers.

When I started last year (after those fateful articles) I never imagined how hard I would have to work to make a few bucks.  I think this aspect is covered (somewhat) better in this article.

I only partially agree with the professional photographer.  I am sure he lost some sales to microstock but aren't the main buyers of our pictures people who would otherwise be priced out of the market.  And on the other side, don't companies who can afford it still buy exclusive pictures?  I talked to a advertising exec for a big company recently about this: he said they would never use microstock because they don't want "their" picture to show up on 23 other webpages and a bunch of flyers.

My 2 cents,


« Reply #10 on: June 05, 2007, 17:37 »
I talked to a advertising exec for a big company recently about this: he said they would never use microstock because they don't want "their" picture to show up on 23 other webpages and a bunch of flyers.

A couple years ago both a provincial bank and a national eyeglasses company had billboards and print ads all over town.  It was slightly confusing because they were head and closeup shots of men/women with glasses.  One of the advertisers were selling glasses... but since the photos were exactly the same - I'd say they both bought stock....  You'd think the eyeglasses place would at least hire a photographer!

Then last year I did some work for the bridal show and when the big program came out in the paper everyone must have discovered cheap stock... because one photo appeared on the cover and in an unrelated ad inside. 

Just a couple cases where they shoulda spent the big bucks.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2007, 17:43 by Pixart »


« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2007, 19:17 »

I would have thought Stephen was making more?? Compare his numbers to Lisa's.

Don't really think it's fair to compare my numbers with Lisa's, I do this part time -  have a 40/50 hour a week day job, and have far fewer images. Thus I don't have the time to do alot of the model/lifetstyle shots that are the most popular. Also, she started three years earlier than I.

I'm happy where I'm at.

« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2007, 02:01 »
I do not know if you guys have seen this one http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003724590_istockphoto28.html
from May 27th, a similar article in the Seattle Times. For me it is motivating to see people being successful in microstock.

« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2007, 04:04 »
yes, encouraging to say the least.

« Reply #14 on: June 13, 2007, 11:59 »
I would say that Lisa is making way more than 100,000 USD per year, probably closer to 200,000. She has already sold more than 100,000 images this year and it only June. Last time I looked (1st June) she had just sold 500,000 as of today she's sold 509,161. She's selling about 700 per day, more than 300,000 per year, she'll break 1,000,000 by this time next year.


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
Interview with Lise

Started by Istock News Microstock News

1 Replies
Last post November 17, 2006, 14:02
by leaf
15 Replies
Last post September 10, 2007, 23:41
by KiwiRob
16 Replies
Last post August 16, 2011, 12:33
by MatHayward
9 Replies
Last post July 05, 2018, 18:36
by alexandersr
1 Replies
Last post November 11, 2018, 05:58
by corepics


Microstock Poll Results