MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Poll

On Shutterstock, how many images do you need to earn $10,000 month

5,000
23 (6.7%)
7,500
9 (2.6%)
10,000
13 (3.8%)
12,500
5 (1.5%)
15,000
10 (2.9%)
17.500
11 (3.2%)
20,000
37 (10.8%)
22,500
2 (0.6%)
25,000
13 (3.8%)
27,500
0 (0%)
30,000
36 (10.5%)
32,500
5 (1.5%)
35,000
6 (1.7%)
37,500
4 (1.2%)
40,000
170 (49.4%)

Total Members Voted: 318

Author Topic: How many images do you need to achieve $10,000/month  (Read 55947 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« on: October 02, 2014, 00:55 »
+4
I'm curious what people think from their own data.  I know that everyone's income is different from different images etc.etc. but if we get a few votes we should find an average. 

I'm certain someone will come in here and say what the overall average earnings/image on Shutterstock is - but I think the overall average is quite a bit lower than the average of people who are active shooting creative stock (and not shooting 100,000 'news' images).

Anyhow, I'm curious to see how varied the opinions are.


« Reply #1 on: October 02, 2014, 03:02 »
+4
point is also time, you have to made 10.000 images in 3 years, then make every year 3000  very good new images to have the same income

« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2014, 03:09 »
0
very nice portfolio. very good job. is stock only income in your life? can you live with that amount in norway?  very lovely country :) i was there

« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2014, 05:19 »
+11
Based on what i see with my own portfolio and from what I hear from ex exclusives you need a very, very large number of files if you want to have reliable 10 000 dollars a month. Especially the income from subs is much lower than I expected. I think I would need at least 20 000 files for regular 10k a month.

So unless the content is ultra, ultra generic, I wouldnt send it to SS or a site that sells mostly subscriptions.

The extended licenses are a nice bonus, but so far I cant really plan for them, neither in style that is preferred for the bonus nor can I make a realistic assumption "I will have X amount of extended licenses if I sell Y amount of sales". Maybe if I have 10 000 images online, but to get there is a very long road.

The other thing, I am now working with a 36 MP camera and processing large files takes much longer, then when I was shooting with 6-12 MP.

Another reason to send large files, with more niche content to agencies with higher prices. I really dont see how I can ever get a decent return from subs sites.

I wish Shutterstock had a midstock price section, maybe even on a different agency. They have the ultracheap with SS, they have the super high end with Offset, but what about midstock? Because that is something that istock still does have, although they have lost many customers, they do have many business accounts who dont mind paying around 60-120 dollars for a file.

The only other agency that is targeting midstock customers is stocksy. But they are doing it with a niche, while istock also sells objects on white to that segment.

Fotolia havs a system where you can gradually increase the price of your whole portfolio, on Dreamstime it is individual files that go up inprice.

But what would be interesting was if maybe there was an additional "artist shop" alongside my SS portfolio, where I can place files that I believe should get a higher price, because I know from experience it will rarely sell.

Or they need a new agency for that.

Obviously they can also just leave the whole midstock market to other agencies, nothing wrong with that. Their system works well, but it clearly favours artists or small teams that can produce very high volume of creative files.

As a single artist 50 files a week is a good output for me and that includes video or stock for high end.

I am really not a mass shooter. I would prefer to do 30 files well. But I can bring it up to 50 and just upload more variations.

But more than 200 files a month, would only be possible if I hire people. And then I need to have the money to feed them.

The only thing I could do is do more people/lifestyle shootings. I can get many more themes and files quickly when I work with people, than when I do still life. Good still life is very time consuming, you can spend a whole week and just have 6 really nice files.

So maybe that is something I could do, become a serial shooter for generic people stock.

We will see.

ETA: obviously the solution for me is not to focus only on SS, but look at the different options and different agencies. But 5000 dollars a month would be nice. It will still need 10k files, at least with what I am shooting.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 05:42 by cobalt »

« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2014, 06:06 »
+4
Thanks for the thorough answer cobalt.  I have an idea myself obviously but am interested to see how wide the spread is between different opinions.

In general if someone were to ask me I think I'd say somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 images depending on the quality and subject matter.  It would certainly be interesting if Shutterstock dove into the midstock market.. I'm not sure that's going to happen though.  They seem to be pretty strong where they are and strengthening their position instead of spreading out might not be so dumb.

« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2014, 06:12 »
0
I agree, they do what they do very well. They can leave the midstock market to other agencies, if it doesnt interest them.

Just wanted to add: they are doing a great job at selling video, much better than I expected. So Ill try to add more videos for balance. With an average of 19 dollars, video is a way of getting midstock returns from SS.

Obviously video sales are MUCH lower than photo downloads. But they make quite difference  every month.

Another thing might be for artist to team up with a group account, or start a business that bundles their work. This way you can move up faster in the rankings or just have more mass to upload every week. Of course people need to get along well, if they want to join forces in a business. The other solution is to hire people or freelancers.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 06:17 by cobalt »

« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2014, 06:15 »
+3
Subject matter is very important. If you don't chase the "lifestyle" market you might need a lot more than 40,000 files to get 10k a month. I know I would (and I see "40,000" is the most favoured response - I suspect that means "quite a bit more than 40,000).

Tror

« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2014, 06:29 »
+7
I voted for 25.000, but am aware that for many it might be more, but it depends on sooo many factors, so I think the vote is just a minor indicator and too simple to give a real answer, so I wanna comment:

1. How many images submitted within what timeframe?

You may get this income for a while if you submit 10.000 good images within three month. But if you have built up a profile of 10.000 in the last years = no. Your income will be very much lower.

2. What type?
Are you a volume producer or a quality producer? If you have high prodcution value shootings or outsource your shoots to some people who produce professional image material for your accounts it is way more likely to achieve a high income with way fewer images than a volume producer who creates material like Yuri in the early days.

3. Artistic Quality
Some People just get it right. They just produce the right stuff in a very good quality or special way and make lots of money in little time. See Ollyy for example (#2 in Photodune).

4. Investment
Is the total revenue important to you or the Profit? The relationship of how much money you ahve to throw into a production and how much comes out is very interesting as well :-)
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 11:09 by Tror »

stocked

« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2014, 06:37 »
+3


So unless the content is ultra, ultra generic, I wouldnt send it to SS or a site that sells mostly subscriptions.



Couldn't agree more everything else is very short-term-minded!

« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2014, 06:43 »
+2
I do not believe it is humanly possible by one person on Shutterstock alone without special considerations for search advantages. If it where possible I'd say at least 50,000-60,000 images and that person would have to be uploading 500 new images weekly.

stock-will-eat-itself

« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2014, 07:00 »
+3
Going by my own figures 16,000 images to achieve a stable $10,000 per month on SS alone.

SS are missing a trick by not having a Midstock collection, when iS introduced Midstock in the early days 20% of my portfolio made up over 50% of my income.

Its very frustrating to see all the good quality work pulled into the vortex of subs. But that is todays dominant business model, not very inspiring for pushing yourself creatively.

« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2014, 08:03 »
+1
Based on my numbers it would be over 40k, more like 50.  But it all depends on what your content is.  Mine is generic peanut butter while others with fewer images are escargot.

« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2014, 08:07 »
+1
Thanks for the thorough answer cobalt.  I have an idea myself obviously but am interested to see how wide the spread is between different opinions.

In general if someone were to ask me I think I'd say somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000 images depending on the quality and subject matter.  It would certainly be interesting if Shutterstock dove into the midstock market.. I'm not sure that's going to happen though. They seem to be pretty strong where they are and strengthening their position instead of spreading out might not be so dumb.

Most strong, forward looking companies are looking beyond the current state. My guess is that SS has multiple initiatives going on, one being strengthening their current model and the other playing the what if, where can we go, etc. The risk is only in terms of pilot testing as most strategic companies test before fully launching. So it would be VERY SMART of SS to be looking for other revenue streams 2-5 years out on top of their current model, kinda like Offset. I would actually be surprised if SS ISN'T looking at other segments given that they are now publicly traded and share owners demand growth. 

Uncle Pete

« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2014, 09:06 »
0
Images of what? (OK had to say that...)  :P

On SS only:



That's also how many images I'd need to make $10,000 a month on SS, if I had the same content that I do now. (in round numbers and rounded figures) Using RPI. But I'm not sure I did the math right.

Figuring it another way, I came up with 7,219 images.  :o

Suppose I could upload 5,000 images over the Winter and get back to you next Sept.?

Of course all of this is based on what I shoot, not what anyone else does, and the fact that I limit my uploads instead of counting chickens and worrying about how big my portfolio is.

Let me put that another way. If I could have 200 like my top 20, I'd be doing darn good! If I had 2,000 I'd be making your goal amount.

And one more answer. For the average person, entering now, with the market flooded and over supplied, it's could be that someone would need 50,000 images to make $10,000 a month.

Too many options, differences and variables for a reasonably accurate, math based, answer to the question.

« Reply #14 on: October 02, 2014, 09:17 »
+3
Based on my numbers from the last few months it would be something over 47,000 ...

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2014, 10:17 »
+3
From my figures, SS alone something like 40000

« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2014, 10:28 »
-2
3. Artistic Quality
Some People just get it right. They just produce the right stuff in a very good quality or special way and make lots of money in little time. See Ollyy for example (#2 in Photodune).
Lol, Ollyy.

What's so special or artistic about images with a grungy grey/pastel background (so 2007) with a HUGE vignette (wow, so artsy)?

If that's your example of something special/very good quality, then microstock really has no standards.


Dook

« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2014, 10:34 »
+4
3. Artistic Quality
Some People just get it right. They just produce the right stuff in a very good quality or special way and make lots of money in little time. See Ollyy for example (#2 in Photodune).
Lol, Ollyy.

What's so special or artistic about images with a grungy grey/pastel background (so 2007) with a HUGE vignette (wow, so artsy)?

If that's your example of something special/very good quality, then microstock really has no standards.

It's no supposed to be special or artistic , it's supposed to be useful.

« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2014, 10:41 »
+18
If they are all outstanding, and not just mediocre images... some can do $10k on 5000 images or even less.  If you have a lot of common, average, well done yet easy to reproduce type images (food, decent looking people lifestyle portraiture, vector background or raster graphics mixed in, etc) I'd say it used to be $1 per image per month, a few years back.  Now it's closer to $1 per 2-4 images depending on your work.  Right now, with solely using microstock as your sales outlet, if you can pull .25-.50 cents per image, per month, you're doing amazing. 

EDIT:  Just to clarify, I'm talking about selling your work on multiple agencies (non exclusively) combined income, collectively... not just on Shutterstock alone.  To make $10k a month just on Shutterstock alone, you'd probably need at least 30-50k images.  If they're buried, or don't have the right keywords/metadata, they might do you just as good (in terms of sales) as having a portfolio of 1000-5000 amazing vectors, with better keywording.

Things have changed.  Market saturation... the struggle is real.  It will continue getting tougher to eek out a living doing this.  You'll need quality and quantity combined, or just quit and go get a job with actual health benefits working for "the man".  Many of us who have been doing stock for years as our sole business, are also getting "tired".  This business will tire you out.  The freedom of working for yourself is outstanding, but to have to work harder to make the same or less income, that's not something I plan on doing in my 5-10 year plan. 

Will some of us full timers still be selling microstock imagery as our main squeeze 5 years from now?  It's possible; all depends on how much hunger and hustle you have left.  There are a ton of ways to make a living.  Ask yourself how hard you want to work for it.  I am US based.  Many of our European, Russian and Asian friends overseas have more hunger in their left pinkies than many of us in the states have, and a lot lower living expenses, to boot.  Thumbs up to anyone who has the determination to succeed in this business.  For every dollar you earn, you have worked your coolie off to make it.  There are no easy shortcuts in this game.  The times you can coast and not work as hard, while collecting residuals is pretty nice... but get lazy for too long and you'll regret losing your momentum.

Wow - I need to seriously lay off the coffee.  Writing a book, here. 



« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 10:46 by ArenaCreative »

Tror

« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2014, 11:14 »
+4
3. Artistic Quality
Some People just get it right. They just produce the right stuff in a very good quality or special way and make lots of money in little time. See Ollyy for example (#2 in Photodune).
Lol, Ollyy.

What's so special or artistic about images with a grungy grey/pastel background (so 2007) with a HUGE vignette (wow, so artsy)?

If that's your example of something special/very good quality, then microstock really has no standards.

Well, obviously it is always a matter of taste.

The point why I mentioned him is that he is #2 sales rank on photodune. That has nothing to do with my or your opinion or standard. He simply is. According to my (guessed) numbers he should be making the 10.000 then with his port on SS alone. Considering that my personal RPI is lower (abstracted from the number of images in Port and photodune ranking) I have to give him the credits of "just hitting the right spot", no matter if you or me like his 2007tish style :-) There is no need to bring up offensive argumentation in a objective discussion ;-)
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 11:17 by Tror »

« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2014, 11:18 »
+5
Tror, you nailed it with your breakdown above - nicely done  :D  You also have to consider how much your time is worth.  Time isn't something you can ever get back, so your time is worth more than money and production costs.  Submitting the 40k images all at once definitely isn't going to yield the same sales results as trickling them in over the past 10 years, either.  Thumbs up on catching that point.  Can't agree more.

« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2014, 11:42 »
0
What I find interesting is the three peaks in earnings at 20k, 30k and 40k.  The latter I understand, but do the other two represent particular types of portfolio?

« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2014, 11:51 »
+4
Is none of the above an answer? I think you either have the types of images that are going to get you to certain earning levels or you don't. So, it doesn't really matter if you make more of them.

« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2014, 12:07 »
+2
Is none of the above an answer? I think you either have the types of images that are going to get you to certain earning levels or you don't. So, it doesn't really matter if you make more of them.

Good point, Cory.  Kind of also true.  If you have a homerun, popular-selling image, and you duplicate it 100 times, you're not going to sell the other 99 as many times as your "star image".  Sure, they might still sell, but you are better off making other "star images" of different themes in order to get the most bang for your buck.  All you're doing is diluting the market on your own theme, or niche subject area.  This could be your strategy, though.  I've experimented with it.  Producing similars of "most popular" images doesn't always increase sales as much as one might think.  Another reason also why blatant image copycats never get ahead.

stocked

« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2014, 12:22 »
+1
What I find interesting is the three peaks in earnings at 20k, 30k and 40k.  The latter I understand, but do the other two represent particular types of portfolio?
I'm pretty sure vector or 3d artists doing better in general than photographers on SS, so most photographers are probably at around 40k (for sure there are exceptions like Sean and Leaf which doing much better) and vector artists are probably more around 20k


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
38 Replies
15402 Views
Last post February 06, 2009, 23:50
by lephotography
17 Replies
7200 Views
Last post May 14, 2010, 10:37
by fotografer
2 Replies
4316 Views
Last post September 15, 2013, 12:07
by leaf
9 Replies
4237 Views
Last post May 23, 2021, 23:42
by cristianstorto
0 Replies
265 Views
Last post February 17, 2024, 19:29
by The Mighty Jungle

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors