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.   

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.

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

We agree much. Im just in a hostile mood, and want to do something and fight back and such.

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.

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 ...

Dividere et impera.

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 don�t 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. 

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.