You'll find we're not too keen on giving out all that data, as it's a dog eat dog world right now.  Still, you might find some useful bits by reading old posts.

Mm - didn't think it was really a 'dog eat dog' - simply - because you can't really "copy" a good photo/video. (I.e., there is work involved, which, I think most people are allergic to. And even if you managed to 'copy' the lighting, props, etc - just because you copied it doesn't mean it will sell - because someone already 'beat' you to the punch, etc).

I have taken a look at a few blogs - found the backyardsilver - where I think he said he made about $3k/month. To me - that seems "low" in the stock photography/videography field - but reading some other posts some people seem to be happy to get paid about $50/month.

So I was trying to figure out - if the people making $50/month only say have 10 images uploaded, or - if it's like they having 1000's of images/videos/etc - and are just making that... i.e., how viable it is, etc...

If you know of any major success stories, I'd be interested in hearing about those...

I didn't say it was about copying.  All that you asked for is what could be considered confidential business data.  And not knowing you from anyone, that's a lot to ask.  Nothing personal.

@sean, okay, no problem if you don't wish to share. some people do, some people don't, and I respect both decisions.

$3k is probably top 2-3% I reckon for individuals. Look at SStocks published results and do some maths ;-).

$3k is probably top 2-3% I reckon for individuals. Look at SStocks published results and do some maths ;-).

Do you have a link to the published results?

It's hard to say exactly how many are working for some of the top contributor accounts, maybe 1, maybe 10, but looking at numbers from various sites, the top players seem to pull in around $30,000-$100,000 per month. That means helicopter aerials of all the major cities and thousands of HQ corporate business shots with successful people.

$3k is top 2-3%? Quite unlikely. You really think 1 out of 50 contributors makes $3k per month? Not even close.

I would guess it's not even top 1%, or top 0.1%.

Assuming you pay all the taxes you should as a business, that's right around the lowest full-time pay you can get where I live (i.e. cleaner). In cheaper countries it would go a long way of course.

pps #2 - you also do have a good point. in some countries, making $2 USD/hour *is* considered a good wage... so you are competing with hundreds of thousands of people from these types of countries too - part of the reason I think maybe some of these sites can get away with paying contriibutors "$0.35" for a top quality image, etc...

Well, $3K a month is about 35% more than the highest minimum wage in the world (Australia)... so although your statement may be true (right around the lowest full-time pay you can get where I live)... $3K a month isn't exactly on the poverty line, wherever you live!

Yeah but nobody quotes earnings after tax. The $2,300 you mention is the minimum wage... which is before any taxes, so if you get $2,300 left from $3,300... then using the same maths, $2,300 is actually $1,602. So $3,300 being the same as $2,300 doesn't work... as you're comparing them differently.   

(It won't be $1,602, as I'm assuming Australia has some kind of minimum earnings threshold like most countries [so that amount will be higher]... but still, I'm just going on the data in this thread)

As far as I'm aware, most published average or median wages are calculated without tax included. As you say... taxes are going to vary widely depending on where you live, so a comparison of amounts before tax would make more sense.
 

It is, but not in the context of this thread. The point is that whenever somebody says how much they want to earn a month, how much they've made from a certain agency, how much they get per download etc... 99% of the time they're referring to the actual dollar amount received, not how much they'll have left once they've paid taxes.

But still... taxes or not, if someone gets minimum wage in Australia then they get $2,300 a month or $1,600 a month (or whatever it is)... they don't get $3,300.

But still... taxes or not, if someone gets minimum wage in Australia then they get $2,300... they don't get $3,300.

Well, they do (if where I live), it's just that the employer pays the social fees (social security, health, etc.) and you don't see them. As a freelancer/business owner, you see them, and have to pay them.

If you want to compare apples to tree trunks, that's fine, but you get a better picture of reality if you compare apples to apples.

Again, in some countries social security is not mandatory and freelance invoicing could be the same as your wage.

Don't know exactly how it is in the UK, but saw something about 9% social fees (I don't live there, so don't know).

That would mean that a $3,300 freelancer income would be comparable to a $3,003 salary.

Quote from: Pauws99 on January 13, 2018, 03:59

$3k is probably top 2-3% I reckon for individuals. Look at SStocks published results and do some maths ;-).

Do you have a link to the published results?

It's hard to say exactly how many are working for some of the top contributor accounts, maybe 1, maybe 10, but looking at numbers from various sites, the top players seem to pull in around $30,000-$100,000 per month. That means helicopter aerials of all the major cities and thousands of HQ corporate business shots with successful people.

$3k is top 2-3%? Quite unlikely. You really think 1 out of 50 contributors makes $3k per month? Not even close.

I would guess it's not even top 1%, or top 0.1%.

Assuming you pay all the taxes you should as a business, that's right around the lowest full-time pay you can get where I live (i.e. cleaner). In cheaper countries it would go a long way of course.

http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=proxy You have to make lots of assumptions to get a figure ;-). Its a guess really and I can't be bothered to mine into the figures. I was being very optimistic with that figure the point is really If you are going to make 3K you have to work very hard and be very proficient in what you do. In the UK minimum wage is �7.50 an hour say $10 so an income of $1500 is probably the floor. Of course though if you were doing Mstock you would have to take out any expenses.

@nitkol - at least $10-$15k/month

That's quite ambitious I must say, at least in photography. Of course you do video which is not something I really know about. However, considering the type of questions you are asking, I would say that you have a long learning curve ahead of you before you can realize your potential. Not to dissuade you or anything, but think hard before you invest years of your time in a very fickle market.

Duplicate. Sorry

I think though it would be hard for anyone to estimate as the future is so uncertain. We may all be Kodakcoin millionaires ;-).

Not that hard, but collection of data will take some time. You are right about the Kodakcoin though. BTW I am spending all my revenues on buying lottery tickets, and that's my way of financial planning.

I guess you could estimate it reasonably well if you looked at the earnings of images first uploaded in 2012, say, and tracked them year by year. Of course, that assumes that the agencies don't downgrade the portfolio of someone that stops uploading.

Steve

You could if you think the last 5 years reflects what will happen in the next 5....I doubt it myself. Any forecast based on past data only really works in a stable or predictable  environment.

It is stable and predictable to a degree. I would go with reasonable projections for one year ahead if past 2-3 years are analyzed.

Yeah id say two years is reasonable but I doubt a mortgage provider would agree ;-0. Although of course some believe that SS determine your earnings down to the nearest cent ;-).

The OP needs to be specific about whether s/he is talking gross or net. Some of the biggest earners also have the largest expenses, for models, muas, props, locations etc.

I don't think there is much mileage in projecting forward - the agencies keep changing the goalposts (though that applies to iS/Getty more than most) and your files are totally at the mercy of search algorithms.

@shady - I'm talking gross.

You can always cut down on your expenses (i.e., buy a used camera instead of brand new) so your net profit is higher... but yes -  wanted to know what the gross sales were before taxes/expenses/etc... and what kind of effort needs to be put in to acheive specific goals, etc...

duplicate (trying to write long posts on phone is tough)

Maybe it's my overly suspicious nature, but do you read each thread with the primary thought in your head of... "What reply can I provide that will allow me to casually slip in a link to my website, in the hopes that somebody might buy my book"?

 

"With stock photography you can spend a considerable investment on gear/setup, models, location, keywording services, uploading software and see the shoot become a flop. This can be to no fault of our own" well it is really may be unavoidable and will happen but I'd put it down to poor research. Done it many times myself if my pictures don't sell I don't blame the crooked agencies or luck.......

Well stock-photography is ALL about shooting what sell finding a niche etc or else the whole venture is futile! to a newbiee just scan the internet and see whats there. Its a cut-throat game and all friends here but dead enemies in searches, agencies etc.
Thats what its all about.

One of those rare occasions when I agree ;-).

I would not discount the vagaries of what happens on the sites - delays in indexing, search changes, and someone else uploading a flood of similar content (or not) right after you can all have a huge effect on how well an image sells. Unfortunately there isn't a lot we can do about it other than upload more so that those effects get averaged out.

These things can happen in our favor or against them. I know of instances where this worked in my favor, and I suspect ones where they went against me.

The more your images are unique and in demand the more they will sell no matter what the agencies do or don't do.

yes of course there's luck or as some like to call it "statistical variation" but as you say the harder (and smarter) you work the luckier you get. You can control what you do but not your luck.

With stock photography you can spend a considerable investment on gear/setup, models, location, keywording services, uploading software and see the shoot become a flop. This can be to no fault of our own since client habits can be unpredictable to sites chafing the Lagos.

"Chafing the Lagos"??

Getting back to the original question - thought my numbers might help a bit. (Footage only)

a) What is your portfolio size?

700 Different clips, all listed on three agencies.

2100 clips total - give or take. For three months I only had about 60 clips total, for 12 months I had about 900 clips total. More than doubled the port in the last three months, so hopefully average earnings will increase.

b) What average monthly earnings (USD) have you seen over the last 12 months?

$550 / month average over the last 12.

Started selling about 18 months ago.

c) Any specific sites you recommend? (I do see the list on the right, I'm asking about you personally what worked best for you).

All of my earnings have come from Pond5, Shutterstock, and Videoblocks. I've found SS has the fastest review times, P5 has the best user interface and takes the least amount of time overall for me, pretty good review times. VB is a slower all around but still decent sales there. I uploaded the same 30 or so starting clips to Dissolve a little over a year ago and unlike the other three agencies none of them sold for a year, so didn't pursue it further. Uploading the rest soon though just in case they come back around.

d) Any trends/things you'd recommend focusing on? (I.e., certain types of video/styles/etc?)

For my port model footage and a few drone shots have sold best. The drone shots have also had a subject though, so not just landscapes. Boats going down a river for example.

For models it seems like shooting shallow depth of field and backlighting sells pretty well - based on my port and glancing over top sellers at different agencies. Slow-motion has sold a lot as well. 4K sales are slowly increasing too.