MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: The chart that says "unsustainable"  (Read 13493 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 04, 2012, 03:59 »
+3
Here is my chart of earnings per file per month versus portfolio size and sales volume since December 2004. I think it tells us everything we need to know about microstocking:



Return per image per month peaked in May 2006 at 36c. Today it is running at between 6c and 8c.

Sales hit a max in October/November 2006.

Earnings per file have fallen to less than a fifth of what they once were
Sales have declined steadily for six years despite the continual growth in the porfolio which has doubled in size since November 08 and quadrupled since November 05.

Note that both the growth in portfolio size and the fall in earnings per file are roughly linear (despite all the various price hikes and schemes).

To have maintained my iStock earnings I would have had to roughly treble my upload rate since 2006.

As my commission rate is 17% it seems reasonable to assume that a newbie will be getting about 6c per month per approved upload, but only 3c per month per upload if he has a 50% rejection rate. With initial upload limits of 5 or 6 per week, that works out to maybe 25 files per month getting uploaded, giving a yield of $0.75c in the first month $2.25 in the second month $3.75c in the third month, etc.  However, that could translate into no sales for a couple of months and then $5 all at once.

Even if he uses up his entire upload allowance every month, it is hard to see an average newbie getting to a payout within a year (whereas back in 2004 I was able to make $300 in six months).

I find it hard to see what possible incentive there is for new artists to join iStock today, or to bother continuing to upload after the first month or two when the prospect of ever reaching a payout must look dim.

Meanwhile, there is no reason to suppose that the trend won't continue. My RPI has halved in the last two years and it seems reasonable to assume it will fall from 7c per month now to 3.5c by late 2014. The only way to maintain my current (uninspiring) level of earnings until then would seem to be to upload 2300 images a year (allowing for 15% rejections), which is a bit unfortunate as my upload limit is 1976.

With the earnings potential now at around 75c per upload per year, it's reaching the stage where the only reason for someone like me (50,000+ sale diamond non-exclusive) continuing to upload is a concern that failing to upload could speed up the decline in sales.   


« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2012, 04:17 »
0
Very interesting numbers and graphs. Fine analysis also. One of the clearest messages i have seen in a long time.

So now we have all tried the "work harder and upload more" approach, and it didnt work for us only for the agencies.

And now the market is oversupplied.
In the old film days, the contributors would have demanded that the agency closed the door for new photographers.

Everyone has a limit to how much he can work more, better and more intelligently. That normally puts an end to the rat race, but not in microstock, since new photographers are crowdsourced globally and the competition is endless.
It will all end when enough contributors do not get a payout.

And what then?

I advice everybody to, when the pay gets too small and not worth the trouble.. To NOT let the pictures hang online with the agencies,- but to take them down and eventually give them away for free (why not?).  I have begun to do that on low earning agencies, and as things decline with each agency, I will take them completely off the market.

« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2012, 04:26 »
0
Rather than giving them away for free, why not put them with Alamy?

And I wonder if the crowdsourcing will continue to work. I have argued for a long time that at some point the declining return will cease to attract any new artists. I can't for the life of me understand why any newbies would stick with iStock, so the door may effectively already be closed there.

The way I used to look at iStock, back in 06, is that if I upload 10 pictures in a day then eight get accepted and each earn $4 in the first year $3 in the second, $2 in the third and $1 in the fourth, for a total of 8 x $10 for a day's work from iStock and another $80 from all the other agencies combined. That works out at $160 per day.

Now I am looking at about 84c + 42c + 21c + 11c = $1.58 x 8 = $12.64 for putting in a full day's work for iStock. The other agencies now generate five times what iStock does, so my total day rate has dropped to about $75.

Not good.

But for a newbie with an upload limit of a handful a week, even that level of return isn't open.

« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2012, 04:38 »
0
I like the thought of giving them away for free. That would kill the microstock business.

And as for the RPI. There are people in the world who can thrive happily on 2,8 dollars a day. That is what we are up against.

The most interesting part of that equation is the prices on houses in China.

« Reply #4 on: October 04, 2012, 04:42 »
0
Even in Asia $2.8 won't go far in paying for equipment and buying props. And what use will a site be for the main western markets if it has nothing but smiling Asian girls with headsets and the only fish that jump are koi carp?

Microbius

« Reply #5 on: October 04, 2012, 04:45 »
+1
I like the thought of giving them away for free. That would kill the microstock business.

And as for the RPI. There are people in the world who can thrive happily on 2,8 dollars a day. That is what we are up against.

The most interesting part of that equation is the prices on houses in China.
? why would you want to kill the business for those that can still make it work for them. Just seems spiteful to me.

« Reply #6 on: October 04, 2012, 04:45 »
0
I gave up on istock when they reduced commissions below 20%.  I still upload there occasionally but only when I've nothing else to do.  Its such a shame that we couldn't all get together and leave.  Sends out the wrong message to the other sites that now know they can cut commissions a lot without losing most of their suppliers.  Fortunately, it looks like a lot of buyers have moved to SS and some of the other sites.  So hopefully cutting commissions is a flawed strategy.

« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2012, 04:50 »
0
I like the thought of giving them away for free. That would kill the microstock business.

And as for the RPI. There are people in the world who can thrive happily on 2,8 dollars a day. That is what we are up against.

The most interesting part of that equation is the prices on houses in China.
? why would you want to kill the business for those that can still make it work for them. Just seems spiteful to me.
Doesn't make any sense to me either but we can't stop people doing what they want.  I'd much rather make as much as I can from my microstock images.  It might not last forever but over the years, its still a big chunk of money.  I rely on my microstock earnings to pay the bills at the moment, so people giving away stuff for free really doesn't help me.  Instead of hurting the sites, they hurt the rest of us that are already finding it tough.

« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2012, 04:54 »
0
Its such a shame that we couldn't all get together and leave.

IS was either very clever or lucky to when they combined painful uploading and pay cuts.
Many of us had invested so many hours in slow and painful uploading process that they (me included) weren't able to leave. If they had an extremely easy upload I would have left. Ironic?

« Reply #9 on: October 04, 2012, 05:32 »
0
I like the thought of giving them away for free. That would kill the microstock business.

And as for the RPI. There are people in the world who can thrive happily on 2,8 dollars a day. That is what we are up against.

The most interesting part of that equation is the prices on houses in China.
? why would you want to kill the business for those that can still make it work for them. Just seems spiteful to me.

Microstock is making its profit by squeezing both contributors and customers. Thats not a normal business plan. The best business is done when both customer and supplier is happy with the deal. Microstock is a new way, and its not humane and it is not decent. They need to be squeezed back. Microstock as it is now, produces only loosers and thats not sustainable.

It is not that I am after contributors, who make a living from microstock. It is fine that they can, they must be very good. But even Yuri wont last. Microstock as it is now is an impossible arrangement, and it should be stopped and replaced with something sustainable.
When work harder doesnt work, and it doesnt, what else is there, but to fight against them.

« Reply #10 on: October 04, 2012, 05:36 »
0
Even in Asia $2.8 won't go far in paying for equipment and buying props. And what use will a site be for the main western markets if it has nothing but smiling Asian girls with headsets and the only fish that jump are koi carp?

There is always a guy who invests 1000 dollars in koi carps and wiggs, and thinks he wil lbe a millionaire next week.
It is us, the contributors, who do all the work, and bear all the expenses. We take the risk, which normally is an argument for grabbing the profit.

They even refund credit card fraud onto us, how lousy can it be?

« Reply #11 on: October 04, 2012, 05:38 »
0
When work harder doesnt work, and it doesnt, what else is there, but to fight against them.

How about looking for other revenue streams and leaving them to get on with what they are doing while they still can?

Oh - and my point about the carp is that while all of Asia may be mortgaged by newbies desperate to buy jumping carp, it won't do iStock any good when the buyers are hammering on the doors shouting: "We hate jumping carp, give us jumping goldfish!"
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 05:47 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #12 on: October 04, 2012, 05:52 »
0
Your are right. Asian models and carps are not in demand.

Not yet.
It would depend on who the buyers were, and that could change in the future.

Imagine... what if shutterstock closed the doors for  new contributors. Imagine the consequenses.

We would begin to become loyal, and we would shoot what was needed.

« Reply #13 on: October 04, 2012, 05:57 »
0
I shoot stuff that is either cheap and easy (you won't find me buying carp, though you might find me buying cr@p) or else is something I feel like shooting. I wouldn't switch to "what's needed" just because the number of people I was competing against stopped going up.

There are so many contributors already that the addition of a few more makes little difference.

« Reply #14 on: October 04, 2012, 06:06 »
0
We agree much. Im just in a hostile mood, and want to do something and fight back and such.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2012, 06:27 »
0
We agree much. Im just in a hostile mood, and want to do something and fight back and such.
For me, the best thing about independence would be the ability to give away files if I want. I've got a lot of non-stock photos I'd like to be able to give to a charity I'm involved in, but although they have no current intention of starting an RM library, who knows what a future executive committee might decide.
I've been thinking a lot recently that if iStock continues to pan, I'll probably send suitable images to one of the locked teacher image sites. I probably wouldn't give them away CC on Flickr, because of the possibility of them being used commercially, even if that was forbidden (i.e. you can set CC/non-commercial).

« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2012, 06:37 »
0
If there is no money in it, then why not give it away?
We can have our ports op there sitting for them to use and resell in an affiliate circus.
Or we can deprive them of the opportunity to play circus with our rights.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of giving one of my pictures away to a South African painter.

She said, thank you very much!
People are nice, actually.
It made me feel good.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #17 on: October 04, 2012, 06:40 »
0
If there is no money in it, then why not give it away?
We can have our ports op there sitting for them to use and resell in an affiliate circus.
Or we can deprive them of the opportunity to play circus with our rights.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of giving one of my pictures away to a South African painter.

She said, thank you very much!
People are nice, actually.
It made me feel good.

People are jumping to ask, "Did she offer to give you one of her paintings in return?"

« Reply #18 on: October 04, 2012, 06:44 »
0

As my commission rate is 17% it seems reasonable to assume that a newbie will be getting about 6c per month per approved upload, but only 3c per month per upload if he has a 50% rejection rate. With initial upload limits of 5 or 6 per week, that works out to maybe 25 files per month getting uploaded, giving a yield of $0.75c in the first month $2.25 in the second month $3.75c in the third month, etc.  However, that could translate into no sales for a couple of months and then $5 all at once.

Even if he uses up his entire upload allowance every month, it is hard to see an average newbie getting to a payout within a year (whereas back in 2004 I was able to make $300 in six months).
 

I'm newbie and in IS this is my 9th month and I've got 2 payout.

My RPI (with PP) in July was 0,21 and 0,24 in August. (Port of 243 img).

I think that image quality is very important ... my worse picture don't sell ...

« Reply #19 on: October 04, 2012, 07:13 »
0
I tend to agree - have you misplaced a decimal point somewhere?  My earnings from IS are averaging 80c per approved image per month with not particularly commercial images that just about scrape past the inspectors.

« Reply #20 on: October 04, 2012, 07:17 »
0
Dividere et impera.

« Reply #21 on: October 04, 2012, 09:37 »
0
I tend to agree - have you misplaced a decimal point somewhere?  My earnings from IS are averaging 80c per approved image per month with not particularly commercial images that just about scrape past the inspectors.

My total earnings from iS last month were 270.01 (according to their site, 297.19 according to statsplus) for 4000 images. That's 6.75c for the month (not counting PP sales, which should take it up to around 11c).

Are you exclusive to be getting 80c? Obviously, if I were exclusive I would be getting double the commission rate and sales prices that are - what? - double again? I'm not sure. Plus a much improved search engine position and access to Vetta and Getty, so an eight-fold improvement in my average RPI would not be unreasonable, but it would still not compensate for the loss of earnings from other outlets.

If you are making 80c per file per month without exclusivity then I take my hat off to you.

Bauman - all I can say is well done. I'm sure there aren't many newcomers doing that well. But two payouts - is that $100? - in nine months is still a long way short of what was possible with much lower quality files eight years ago, so even though you are doing well it has become far harder to make money.

« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 09:45 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #22 on: October 04, 2012, 10:01 »
0
No, right at the bottom of the heap @ 15% but microscopic port might be a statistical anomaly (more likely the crazy acceptance criteria mean that the good producers of this type of image dont bother so less competition).  Last payout took 5 months (including PP) with an average of 25 images on the site and next should be a little quicker with a few more online. 

« Reply #23 on: October 04, 2012, 10:05 »
0
I'm also new to istock this year, I'm exclusive (although joined in 2011)I started uploading in December 2011 and so far earned $5042.
I'm pretty happy with that! I don't know what the norm would be but I know other newbies with only a handful of downloads and no payouts as yet. My portfolio size is 601.



« Reply #24 on: October 04, 2012, 10:15 »
0
It's interesting that you can do that with just 25 images. I would have thought there would be a danger of them just getting completely lost among the millions.

I'd be happy with that, too, Spen.

« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2012, 10:21 »
0
I forgot to say that my portfolio is 100% footage. It's hard to find any footage stats in microstock as it seem's only geared up for photography! Maybe footage is the new photography and it's reaching it's peek like photo's did in 2006?

« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2012, 10:30 »
0
Ah! We're into apples and pears, then. Mine's entirely stills.

« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2012, 10:39 »
0
If there is no money in it, then why not give it away?

I think I'd rather bury all my images in a hole in the ground than give them away for free. I can understand your frustration though. I feel it too. That's  the reason why I opened my own shop and only upload to sites that pay better now. I wish there were more sites that pay well though.

velocicarpo

« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2012, 11:21 »
0
If there is no money in it, then why not give it away?

I think I'd rather bury all my images in a hole in the ground than give them away for free. I can understand your frustration though. I feel it too. That's  the reason why I opened my own shop and only upload to sites that pay better now. I wish there were more sites that pay well though.

So true. I would too rather put them on expensive sites, my own store etc. where the pissibility of sales is very low, but at least I feel my work valued.

« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2012, 11:34 »
0
I did my version of the stats you posted and it's interesting that although there are some similarities, in spite of you having sold more overall at IS than me, my RPI for September was 17 cents and my highest this year so far - April - was 25 cents. No PP sales are included in those numbers (because of the bug on IS's side that has them all on one day). I'm at 17% royalty now too.

On a separate topic, it's a shame that IS has no data showing as to when images become (or left) Photo+. It appears that StatsPlus marks something that is now P+ as having been P+ always, even though it hasn't been. Might make trying to assess pre- and post-Photo+ performance a problem.

I also liked the display of monthly top 10 images over time. It was interesting to see the items that seasonally find their way back to the list (Christmas images in my case) and some that have their time and then fade away :)

« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2012, 12:15 »
0
I just looked at your port, JoAnn. You've got far more people than me (well, I've only barely got more than none) a much more varied portfolio and your processing produces much brighter files than mine, all of which probably push up your dl/month compared with mine. Even so, 17c RPI is not a lot for the effort involved.

steheap

  • Author of best selling "Get Started in Stock"

« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2012, 12:22 »
0
You prompted me to work out my rpi as well (where "i" is the number of images I have online with Istock, not the number of uploads). I get about 80% acceptance these days so they are not too far apart. Also, the number of images is the total at the end of each month which skews the results down a bit.

Anyway, caveats out of the way, I currently have 1744 photos online having grown to that number from 700 at the start of 2011. Income per online file was around $0.12 in early 2011, but went to $0.20 in Aug 2011 (Photo+?) and has stayed around that level ever since as I have grown my portfolio. September 2012 was exactly 20c.

I would like more, of course, but I don't find iStock to be that much incremental work (I use Deepmeta), and it is normally my second best seller.

Steve

lisafx

« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2012, 14:42 »
0
Very interesting stats and discussion Baldrick.  Thanks for posting them. 

I would have no idea how to begin to do a chart like what you've posted, but I did calculate my return per image and it was .28 this past month, compared to .77 in Sept 2010, at the height of my heyday with Istock. 

« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2012, 14:59 »
0
Very interesting stats and discussion Baldrick.  Thanks for posting them. 

I would have no idea how to begin to do a chart like what you've posted, but I did calculate my return per image and it was .28 this past month, compared to .77 in Sept 2010, at the height of my heyday with Istock.

^^^ Great numbers Lisa! Mine were 14.4c last month and 47c in March 2010 which was my peak at IS.

« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2012, 15:08 »
0
Lisa, the stats were generated by that new program statsplus that is on offer in Beta from the iStock forum

here
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=347765&page=1
« Last Edit: October 04, 2012, 15:34 by BaldricksTrousers »

« Reply #35 on: October 09, 2012, 09:34 »
0
The problem with istock is that they have management which is caring about profit only. Not caring about making their business more profitable in terms of obtaining more sales. All what they do is cutting authors part of royalties and upping prices sky high... That business model can't be sustainable!

lisafx

« Reply #36 on: October 09, 2012, 12:05 »
0
Lisa, the stats were generated by that new program statsplus that is on offer in Beta from the iStock forum

here
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=347765&page=1


Thanks!  Really great program! 

My computer is having a problem with java (even though I have reinstalled the latest version) so  Statsplus keeps freezing on me, but I did manage to see that I made a bit more on Istock in Sept. than I had thought.  Still a long way off "good" though...

« Reply #37 on: October 09, 2012, 12:18 »
0
Lisa, the stats were generated by that new program statsplus that is on offer in Beta from the iStock forum

here
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=347765&page=1


Thanks!  Really great program! 

My computer is having a problem with java (even though I have reinstalled the latest version) so  Statsplus keeps freezing on me, but I did manage to see that I made a bit more on Istock in Sept. than I had thought.  Still a long way off "good" though...


I have tried it on the "past" (when jsnover talked about it) and havent worked, today it went over, nice indeed!

RacePhoto

« Reply #38 on: October 09, 2012, 12:54 »
0
While I'm not a big fan of RPI for "how much can I make?" questions, I am when it comes to one agency and one persons own images. It's a good way to see how earnings are produced for a specific collection, on a specific agency. That aside, I thought I'd do my own "unsustainable" chart and see how things look. WOW!


Nearly Identical Images
And I have audio selling on IS... Haven't added to either since April. (except new audio, which has sold some)
IS is back to 2009, but I have more images and more different files, while SS is climbing, with no audio?



« Reply #39 on: October 09, 2012, 15:04 »
0
I've been tracking the same stats for years on all my sites and I have almost identical results as the OP for IS (since 2005), FT (since 2008), 123 (since 2008) and CS (since 2005).  SS is almost flat on RPI while DT is down about 20% (since 2005).  My income also peaked in 2006.

The portfolios are pretty much similar on all the sites.  My portfolio went from about 200 images in 2005 to about 2000 images in 2009.  The quality also improved considerably.  Since 2009 I've only been uploading about 100 new images a year.  Kind of hard to get excited about it when your uploads don't keep your sales from falling.

« Reply #40 on: October 09, 2012, 16:12 »
0
The iStock website is down again. They must be back from their vaccation. It's all getting very unsustainable.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #41 on: October 09, 2012, 16:27 »
0
Working again.
Howmany hours are still in the Calgary workday? 2?
Anyone want to lay bets as to whether
1. the long date (today) will in fact lead to the normal lightbox function being restored?
2. if the normal lightbox function is restored, will anything else break?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #42 on: October 09, 2012, 16:57 »
0
OK, so at the top of msg, I see a message from iStock which says:
"It's back! You can add to your lightbox again on individual pages. Just click "add to lightbox" under any item http://t.co/03TiqWMc"
I've tried a random file, and I've clicked the link to the favoured/featured file, but I'm too blind to see the link.

Didn't it used to be just below the main pic?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #43 on: October 09, 2012, 17:00 »
0
[moved to new thread]

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #44 on: October 09, 2012, 17:00 »
0
.

« Reply #45 on: October 09, 2012, 18:20 »
0
pretty graphs, but the conclusions aren't supported by the data - just because 2 stats are correlated, eg, increase in port with decline in RPI, doesnt show a cause & effect

there are many reasons for a decline in RPI, a questionable metric in the first place -- the portfolio is getting stale; the overall # of images for everyone is growing faster than sales; change in number of individual sales versus subs, etc, etc

 

for me the stats are reversed - on SS over the last 4 years my port has  quadrupled and my RPI as tripled.  over the last year my SS port increased 10% while income increased by 30%.  on DT my port has doubled, but RPI is static

i get < 10% income from IS - my port hasnt changed in about 2 years and RPI has stayed about the same

for me, the only stat that really matters is monthly income over time - as long as that increases by 20% or more each year i'll continue to feed MS

lisafx

« Reply #46 on: October 09, 2012, 19:05 »
0
for me, the only stat that really matters is monthly income over time - as long as that increases by 20% or more each year i'll continue to feed MS

Yeah, well obviously.  The problem is how many people are seeing their incomes decrease.  That's why the other stats like falling RPI are illuminating as PART (nobody's saying ALL) of the picture. 


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
39 Replies
19067 Views
Last post March 23, 2010, 10:28
by donding
1 Replies
9662 Views
Last post March 14, 2011, 05:33
by fotorob
4 Replies
8948 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 18:38
by ShadySue
5 Replies
8697 Views
Last post September 17, 2011, 22:33
by PeterChigmaroff
28 Replies
16331 Views
Last post January 24, 2012, 20:28
by krilcis

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors