ok here are mine:

Fotolia: 30% BME
Shutterstock: 20% Down
Istock: 13% BME
Stockxpert: 11% BME
Dreamstime: 11% BME
Bigstock: 4% Down
123rf: 3%
Other micros 2%

Mid/macro portfolios: 7%


Average royalties per download:
Fotolia:  3,88 USD
Dreamstime: 1,08 USD - 1,66 USD ( with a $2000 sale for Exclusive rights)
Stockxpert: 1,04 USD (opted in subs)
Istock: 1,00 USD
Bigstockphoto: 0,87 USD
Shutterstock: 0,33 USD

Quote from: jsnover on April 24, 2008, 22:24

Quote from: andresr on April 24, 2008, 21:17
About the EVO idea, I love it, already made my first submissions, I also love the infinite collection, I see the best of micro turning mid/macro in no time.

Can you elaborate on how you'll divide up your work with these special collections. Will you, for example, submit the same item to Fotolia's Infinite and 123rf's EVO? I know anything in Fotolia Infinite can't be anywhere else micro (because of the price restriction).

Fotolia infinite files can not be sold at cheaper prices, the EVO collection allows you to match those prices or even sell them slightly more expensive so no problem there.

I am going to shoot exclusively for these collections which can also go to macro sites, I have already a list of 6 or 7 sites I can submit to and I know there are tons more that I will research once I get a substantial macro portfolio as well :p

I am actually planning to not submit to microstock anymore. Maybe I will submit the not so good photos to places like snapvillage or fotolia where photos are reasonably priced and I might do illustrations and start with video and see how that goes.

The level of the best photos in microstock is right up there with the macros nowadays. It is sensible for agencies to create a "premium" collection where the best images in their collections sell for higher prices. Fotolia was the first one to implement it, now 123rf is following and I am 100% sure others will come up with something too.
This is the future and is the natural evolution of microstock.

Photos in microstock are too cheap. Putting the lowest size priced at fotolia from 1-7  to 2-14, then to 3-21, then also trying with some exclusive images from 6 to 42 and now submitting to the infinite collection at 20-140 have made me realize that buyers are willing to pay the price for the right photograph. I know agencies could put their prices up 5 or 6 times and will earn lots and lots more and so would we, but they are scared to do it because then clients would go elsewhere.
My favourite site is fotolia because the more sales you get the more rewards you see at higher prices. That's where I don't see shutterstock competing with the market. They have to introduce individual sales or they will lose the best photographers over time.

So people will copy? hehe yeah there are copiers everywhere, but at least on those higher priced images you don't know what is selling. Generally copiers are lazy *insult removed* and they don't take the time to search and analyze what to copy, they go for something that is in front of them like most selling lists and of course the top 50 at SS which is the biggest source for copying in microstock.

Microstock will not die, it will evolve into something better. There are so many customers and so many good images in the industry that sites are beginning to launch mid/macro stock models to sell the best images from contributors at higher prices. It makes sense, sell the normal "Ok" images for $1-20 and sell the really good images for $20-140.
Two sites already have come up with such models, Fotolia Infinite and EVO at 123rf; I know others have it in the works.

What will happen? microstock sites will have the quality, variety and quantity of both photographers and customers to actually become THE best place to buy photos.

I quite like the Infinite collection at Fotolia, it is a brilliant idea. However this is not an aim for exclusive material as infinite collection images are not exclusive. You can submit them to other mid/macro agencies as long as they are not sold for a lower price.

Fotolia as usual is simply cleverer than the rest and is offering an opportunity for us to sell our best work for more money as simple as that. 123rf is also coming up with their EVO collection which is basically the same thing.

I see many microstock agencies doing this, it makes sense to sell the best photos at good prices while keeping the "normal" average photos at microstock prices. I am going to shoot for mid/macro stock exclusively and I will be submitting the not so good photos to micro from now on.

Quote from: 3pod on April 24, 2008, 11:03

Quote from: helix7 on April 24, 2008, 01:12
Just FYI if any other illustrators/vector artists were wondering, according to Alex the EVO program is currently only open to photographers, but will be opened to illustrators at some point.

I'm an illustrator an I got a nice invitation for EVO .

I think they are referring to Vector submitters rather than "illustrators" in general.

About the EVO idea, I love it, already made my first submissions, I also love the infinite collection, I see the best of micro turning mid/macro in no time.

Quote from: lisafx on April 12, 2008, 20:35
My husband helps with carrying gear and setting up lighting on shoots, but I like to process and upload all the photos myself.  Bit of a control freak

I did offer to pay my daughter to help with disambiguating my istock portfolio a year or more ago, but she refused. Can't say I blame her, LOL. 

I have a full time assistant who deals with categorizing and uploading releases to all sites but shutterstock, I do that one myself, it is so simple that it doesn't matter he also does bits and pieces I need and finds locations, models etc etc ...... of course during shoots he helps me carrying stuff and holding reflectors.


Haha about istock I don't think ANYONE wants to do that site, my assistant absolutely hates the process. In fact if he didn't do that site I would probably not upload there at all.

Quote from: leaf on April 11, 2008, 23:00

Quote from: lbarn on April 11, 2008, 22:06

QuoteWaldo, your posts are really interesting reading.  You obviously understand economics and business very thoroughly.  Would love to know what you do for your (other) day job.

Earlier, I was thinking the exact same thing!

dido, well put waldo.  Makes for some interesting reading.

->lisafx
the other 6 or so sites wouldn´t have to quite match istocks potential earnings because there is also the factor of time involved in uploading to 6-15+ sites.  If a photog. had only one site to upload to they would save quite a bit of time that could be used for creating more pics... or in the big players case, save $$ paying people to upload their pictures to 10 different sites.

True, but it takes less time to upload to the other big 6 than to istock alone, my assistant spent the whole of yesterday uploading 35 images to istock, (merging releases, disambiguating, categorizing ......... making lightboxes etc ... )
Today he finished 51 images in all other sites in 2 and a half hours.

Quote from: hatman12 on April 04, 2008, 22:02

Quote from: andresr on April 02, 2008, 16:57
317,190 since Dec 2006

Started with no images now I just passed the 10,000 barrier

Hmmm.... these are very disappointing numbers Andres.  If I assume that you got 30c per download, that's $100,000 approx.  Nice number, but divided into 10,000 images it works out at only $10 per image.  Given the quality of your work I would have expected you to make much more than $10 per image at SS.

It just goes to show that at SS its the volume of uploads that counts, not necessarily the quality of work.  It seems to me that just like the rest of us, once the customers have scrambled to buy your latest uploads, your sales disappear.

You must be very disappointed with those numbers.

Not dissapointed at all. I didn't start with 10,000 from day one, you can't be seriously be making stats like that? so if I upload another 10,000 tomorrow you divide the whole thing by 20,000 ?

will see, not sure how I feel about it until I read the whole details.

QuoteWell, I think IS DOES have the highest earning power (despite the upload limit). I know that is not true for you Andresr and for you Leaf, but I believe it is true for most who are a longer time in microstock. But I can be wrong of course. And must admit that you can charge higher prices at FT is not a good point I made, you are right.

I agree, I didn't say they weren't, I believe they have the biggest share of the whole microstock market and if you are successful there then you have a winner. However this doesn't mean it is the easiest site to succeed. There are many facts that come into play with that particular site such as exclusivity, limits, tough reviews, plus they have the highest quality image bank in microstock so the level of competition is higher than anywhere else.

I wasn't talking about myself in my previous post it was a general comment , IS doesn't do well for me (compared to others) because I like my photoshop compositions and they hate them plus the 35 image a week limit doesn't help, I have 6000 images on my hard disk waiting to be uploaded there. Also a year ago I deleted 1200 images which were not selling as a test for best match positioning.

Despite all that I am the second non exclusive highest earner at the moment over there. The biggest seller on the site is a non exclusive member, Yuri Arcurs who is almost getting twice as many dls as Lise Gagne.

PS: I have been in micro since the end of 2004.

Quote from: DanP68 on April 03, 2008, 07:53
Right Freezing,

But the question comes down to earnings power.  You have to take all factors into account, and that includes higher prices for images at DT and FT as more sales are made. 

Exactly! this is what matters. People go on about how istock earns more per image, how in fotolia you can put prices up, how on DT images with sales get you more after a while etc... etc ..... All these are advantages and disadvantages that sites have. All I care about is how much money I have in the bank at the end of the month.

The reason IS and SS have low payouts it's because they spend heavily on advertising, there isn't a UK design/photography related magazine that I open where I don't see an IS + a SS add, Fotolia is there often too.

Quote from: rjmiz on April 01, 2008, 19:20
Since I am banned from SS (2yrs ago) I have relied on other sites to carry the load. I mean
I was making $400 a month on SS.

This month I did a BME with $303 and now wonder just how far I can push the limits on DT?
Is there anyone who personally reaches $400 or more on DT?

I would like to know and hear what your experience has been, and how your earnings progressed over time.

The MIZ

R u Kidding miz, $300 in a month is no way near how far you can push any microstock site, there are people who make that much in a day over at DT.  Have you noticed they recently announced a limited payout ammount of $10,000 at a time? that must be a good hint for you.

Quote from: cphoto on April 02, 2008, 18:45

Quote from: andresr on April 02, 2008, 16:57
317,190 since Dec 2006

Started with no images now I just passed the 10,000 barrier

I thought you started in 2004 or 2005 with SS?
Anyway great number

Mine is 26,032 for exactly 2 years and about 800 pics.  But I have almost no people in my port, which I think explains my low number.

Made a mistake, Dec 2004!! what . was I thinking hehe, you are right  

317,190 since Dec 2006

Started with no images now I just passed the 10,000 barrier

Helix, I totally agree with you, I think it is more harmful than helpful and I was well happy while the feature was down. These days copying in microstock is an everyday thing so I got used to it.

Quote from: DanP68 on April 01, 2008, 09:53
All of that counts, CD.  If an agency restricts your upload amount, earnings will be capped. If one agency allows you to raise prices, but another doesn't, that has to be factored in too.

You can clearly make more money than iStock in other agencies, for a myriad of reasons. 

Totally agree, you have to take absolutely everything into consideration and I only have a portion of my portfolio there but it is not by choice. I agree that Istock has a lot of the market but it is a lot less than you think. Fotolia, Shutterstock, dreamstime and stockxpert are huge, bigstock and 123rf are quite big too. If I was to go exclusive (which I have considered) it would be to Fotolia.

Andresr

I tried lightroom yesterday for the whole day and I am not sure if I am doing something wrong but I could not get skin tones to look natural. I used cs3 for a looooong time, but for the past 5 months I have been using capture one 4, absolutely love it, fast, reliable and very simple to use.

Will get a macbookpro next week so I will get a chance to try aperture then; so far I have only got pcs.

FT 29%
SS 24%
IS 13%
DT 12%
StockXpert 10%
BigStock 6%
123rf 3%

Other: 4%

Hi, it varies depending on which site you are talking about. My sales in fotolia come mostly from germany, france and the united kingdom.

At shutterstock most sales do come from the states however I have noticed a decrease in sales lately from the US, I think the economic crisis is emminent

Shutterstock.com users come from these countries:
United States18.3%
Brazil4.1%
United Kingdom3.9%
India3.4%
Chile3.2%
Germany3.1%
Mexico2.7%
Philippines2.4%
Canada2.4%
Colombia2.2%
Iran2.1%
France2.0%
Romania1.8%
Spain1.7%
Argentina1.6%
Vietnam1.5%
Italy1.5%
Peru1.4%
Thailand1.3%
Venezuela1.3%
Dominican Republic1.2%
Malaysia1.2%
Australia1.2%
Bulgaria1.2%
Czech Republic1.2%
Other countries32.2%

uhm I am not sure how I feel about those new products. Obviously SS will have to make some good changes in our comissions in may, they did mention so ......

I guess we will have to sit patiently and wait.

Freezingpictures:
I am on a subscription site which gives 50% to the photographer. Normally I get 0.65-0.75 per download. So I guess shutterstock is giving us about 20% comission from the gross sales they make. Numbers match up since ELs cost $100 and we get $20.

100% not including the past couple of days uploads.

Buyers are not like us, we submit everywhere but they just buy at one place maybe two at the most.

I buy everything from istock even if the photos  are from non exclusives, buyers don't have time to waste and go around just trying to save $1.

Lucky Oliver is only 0.30% of my income, not even 1%,
I get more sales at SS than views at LO and what I make on LO in a month I make at SS in about 3 hours, well at least I get a payout every month so pocket money doesn't hurt, hopefully they will pick up because the site is quite nice.

This is very interesting, I am sending an email right now!!!!!
My Portfolio:
http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-1294p1.html

I think it is time for DT to introduce the XS size as well and maybe raise the credits, 4 credits for an Xlarge size is quite cheap in the industry at the moment.

and just for the record I wasn't too happy about the prices for the 123rf sizes ..... I think they could have charged a lot more than that.