MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => Microstock News => Topic started by: Dreamstime News on June 01, 2007, 03:34
-
<span class=h7>Dreamstime contributors earn best royalties. Read about PDN`s survey. (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_7568)</span>
-
<span class=h7>Dreamstime contributors earn best royalties.
While there is no doubt that DT has good royalties, they are not #1 (although they are close).
First, the survey only compared three agencies: IS, SS, and DT. SS only shows earnings (on average) of 0.25/image since they are subscription-based (and this was based on data before the raise), so that isn't a good comparison.
Second, in my analysis, both StockXpert and LO have higher royalties (on average). So they would be #3 (according to my analysis).
-
For me, in terms of average it's as below, but the numbers at FP and LO are too low for a good sample.
FeaturePics
LuckyOliver
StockXpert
Dreamstime
BigStock
iStockPhoto
Fotolia
CanStock
123RF
Shutterstock
-
I am not sure why PDN put that statistic in as that is not what microstock is about.
Macro stock is about earnings per DL.
Microstock is about volume and earnings per month.
My guess is they put it in so the macro people can say "micro pays less than $1 per photo". We know that but we also know that volumn is alot higher than macro so that it evens out.
-
The numbers are definitely skewed towards macro stock, especially for the total income. Total micro income was just under $4000 but almost 60% earned less then $1000. It would have been interesting to see what the other %40 averaged.
-
Total micro income was just under $4000 but almost 60% earned less then $1000. It would have been interesting to see what the other %40 averaged.
It would be interesting to see the income broken down by percentiles (ie. bottem 10% earned X, top 10% earned X)
-
Analyzing studies is not my strong suit, but it appears that this survey is implying that microstock is indeed a threat to macro stock.
~ 865 of the respondents are microstock photographers
~ 788 of the respondents are photographers whose stock income comes primarily from an established commercial stock photo agency
~ 49% of respondents have said their incomes have grown over the past five years
~ 52% of respondents reporting incomes that have stayed the same or fallen
Since microstock is relatively new and growing, I'd have to assume that a large majority of that 49% are the microstock photographers and the majority of that 52% are macro guys.
Perhaps I'm assuming too much or misreading this.
-
I posted this in another forum and I think it's also appropriate here...
OK, I know I always have different views on things, and I don't mean to sound negative towards the survey but I'm not sure what information this survey is telling us and I'm not sure how to look at it.
"Most non-microstock photographers required less than $10K in investment for 2006" that's a very scary statistic in that it can appear a bit deceptive at first. I personally have spent over $15,000 in just equipment this year alone and I don't have any significant lighting equipment to speak of. Last year, I spent close to $10,000 on the same. This doesn't include studio space (which I am trying to secure soon), modeling fees, location fees, insurance, vehicle expenses, etc. I mean honestly, an entry level professional camera is $7,000. A decent medium format camera with a digital back goes for about $22,000. An established photographer, shooting for traditional agencies, isn't going to have to make that initial up front required investment.
My read is that non-microstock photographers made the investment in their equipment when they first started and the barriers to entry into the traditional market place are higher. It appears to me, newer photographers gaining entry into the industry are doing it through the micros or through agencies that don't require the traditional 48mb TIFF file for submission. That means more competition at the micro level...not only from new amateurs signing up, but also from pros moving into the market segment. It also means more opportunities for those like myself that want to make the move into this area. Looking down the road, it looks to me that things are going to get extremely tough and its time, now more than ever, to get serious and establish a concrete foothold before the opportunity slips by.
I was also intrigued by the distribution of income based on specialties. We all know business is a hot topic, but again, I think this can be a bit deceptive. Professional photo shoots sanctioned by a corporate customer are naturally going to bring in more money than a photographer that shoots travel imagery on speculation. My feelings are, all things considered, the distribution appears to be pretty regular amongst all categories.
The thing that really impressed me was the income based on licensing model. Royalty Free imagery does in fact appear to be more lucrative. That's a good thing for us!
Lots to think about in the survey. Am looking forward to further evaluation and the June issue.
-
Steve-oh - I think it is hard to read into the statistics but you may be correct. it would have been more beneficial if they provided separate results for macro and micro photags.
They are two different markets so combining them doesn't make sence (like combining the sales statistics of fiat and ferrari - same overal company but sales volumes and prices differ completely) Will be interesting to see if they do a better job in the actual magazine.
-
As a woman, I found the gender numbers very interesting. Microstock is the only category where there is equality between men and women in terms of earnings. That's all to rare in any industry. What it means is what all of us already know...that microstock's doors are open to everyone, not just the professionals. Most of the photographers who started off as amateurs in microstock and later became full-time professionals have been women (I only know of a couple of men), too, which leaves me hopeful that the gender equality for income will remain steady.
(http://www.pdnonline.com/photodistrictnews/photos/2007/05/20070531_Feat_StockSurvey_PDN_06.gif)
-
K - I am going to be stereotypical here and say what I think it shows is that more women work part time. Therefore the equal earning in microstock reflects that this is a part time/hobbie for most people.
Re Dreamstime blowing there own horn, from my stats they wont be blowing it next year. With subscription DL now started (after the survey was done), my $/DL hve reduced.
-
The numbers are definitely skewed towards macro stock, especially for the total income. Total micro income was just under $4000 but almost 60% earned less then $1000. It would have been interesting to see what the other %40 averaged.
This easy to estimate: 40% of the microstock respondents averaged about $8500.
Overall, I found the analysis incredibly shallow - almost to the point of being meaningless. I'm not a statistician, but I think that any mention of average is fairly meaningless without mentioning standard deviation.
-
K - I am going to be stereotypical here and say what I think it shows is that more women work part time. Therefore the equal earning in microstock reflects that this is a part time/hobbie for most people.
Oh...I actually agree with you! :-) What I found reassuring though is that for part-time women and stay-at-home moms, microstock is proving to be a viable source of additional household income. When I was raising my kids and stayed home, there wasn't anything available other than being a Mary Kay beauty consultant or Tupperware party hostess. Ugh.