It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30.

It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30.

Sure.  Do 3.33 times what you�re doing now.

Quote from: alexandersr on July 15, 2018, 09:44

It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30.

Sure.  Do 3.33 times what you�re doing now.

If I did 3.33 times what I do now I would probably make 50% less 

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on July 15, 2018, 11:51

Quote from: alexandersr on July 15, 2018, 09:44

It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30.

Sure.  Do 3.33 times what you�re doing now.

... or 3.33 times better...

...or wait for a 333% pay raise at SS...

Quote from: nobody on July 15, 2018, 13:15

final comment(s) from me---

Many 'Artists' don't understand the buyers needs - heck, they don't even understand why they are taking the photos in the first place. Before you shoot answer why first...

Best piece of advise I've read in a long while.

Have to say though with some of my stuff I do wonder why I shot it....and they often are good sellers. Having a good "nose" for what sells is probably one of the top skills in this business...wish I possessed it.

It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30.

Easily.  Its all about quantity.  If you have 1000-1250 or so images id guess you'll turn over $100 a month or so. 

The "old" rule of thumb used to be an image will earn about $1 per year.  So for $100 a month you'd need about 1200.  The $ per image is dropping on SS a lot due to saturation so its likely more than that.

It is possible if you upload 20,000+ images

20000 garbage photos maybe...no way 20000 good content all earn you 100 dollar month. i already told you...you have a big problem with quality, quantity won't help yu. that's hy you complain in every thread. if you need 75000 files to reach a 500 dollar level you should first stop uploading b...it...and focus on unity of content.

It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30.

How many images have you online at shutterstock?

Quote from: jonbull on July 16, 2018, 08:06

Quote from: pkphotos on July 16, 2018, 06:22

It is possible if you upload 20,000+ images

20000 garbage photos maybe...no way 20000 good content all earn you 100 dollar month. i already told you...you have a big problem with quality, quantity won't help yu. that's hy you complain in every thread. if you need 75000 files to reach a 500 dollar level you should first stop uploading b...it...and focus on unity of content.

LOOOL, look who's talking about complaining in every thread.

jonbull and derek, Beavis and Butt-head of the microstock.

My thoughts exactly, I comment on very few threads, and don't mind adding a few tongue in cheek comments here and there. It cracks me up to see how earnest people get.

Quote from: Dumc on July 16, 2018, 08:25

Quote from: jonbull on July 16, 2018, 08:06

Quote from: pkphotos on July 16, 2018, 06:22

It is possible if you upload 20,000+ images

20000 garbage photos maybe...no way 20000 good content all earn you 100 dollar month. i already told you...you have a big problem with quality, quantity won't help yu. that's hy you complain in every thread. if you need 75000 files to reach a 500 dollar level you should first stop uploading b...it...and focus on unity of content.

LOOOL, look who's talking about complaining in every thread.

jonbull and derek, Beavis and Butt-head of the microstock.

LoL!

Actually, I don't think you meant to say "LoL" but:

Heh, heh! Heh, heh! Heh, heh! Heh, heh! Heh, heh! Heh, heh! Heh, heh!......

final comment(s) from me---

Many 'Artists' don't understand the buyers needs - heck, they don't even understand why they are taking the photos in the first place. Before you shoot answer why first...

Yes, why would someone buy this, what's the message, if there's no concept or use, why take the photo? Numbers don't make sales, if they ever did. I could delete all but my top 50 on SS and still be making over $100 a month.

I know people here have said this many times before but the message falls on deaf ears. It's not how many photos and not the agencies fault, what are the photos?

Quote from: nobody on July 15, 2018, 13:15

final comment(s) from me---

Many 'Artists' don't understand the buyers needs - heck, they don't even understand why they are taking the photos in the first place. Before you shoot answer why first...

Best piece of advise I've read in a long while.

DITTO.

I�ve got just bellow 2.000 pictures in shutterstock now. I earn aprox $40 dollars a month. I don�t think I have a stellar portfolio, but its not terrible either.
I�d say the $1/year rule applies to all of the agencies together. I confess I am a bit bellow that, earning around $0,75 for the for an average of 1500 pictures at all agencies together.
Don�t know if I�ll continue to increase my portfolio, to be honest. Too much work for little payback.
br,
Joao

That is actually a healthy RPI and above average. Anything newer than two years old will have a RPI of around $0.05 per year.

It seems like people buy a camera on the monday and then want to be a stock photographer on Tuesday.

Wednesday, they're complaining their images aren't selling and most quitting by Thursday...

Quote from: t�tar�t� on July 16, 2018, 08:36

Quote from: alexandersr on July 15, 2018, 09:44

It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30.

How many images have you online at shutterstock?

Few, around 3.000 images.

You should be earning $300/month for 3,000 images.

No, but 40$ with 3k images is very poor performance.

It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30.

Bear in mind that it's profit, not sales, which is important.
It could be that the people who have big sales also have big expenses.
So if you are spending $20 on shoots and earn $30, you're doing better than people who have $500 in expenses but are earning $505

Quote from: alexandersr on July 15, 2018, 09:44

It's possible to earn $100 selling images on shutterstock per month. I earn approximately $30.

Bear in mind that it's profit, not sales, which is important.
It could be that the people who have big sales also have big expenses.
So if you are spending $20 on shoots and earn $30, you're doing better than people who have $500 in expenses but are earning $505

You are so right....another example of the way people misuse statistical measures. One metric on its own tells you nothing.

It's been a long time since I've posted on forums like this one and can scarcely believe that this is what stock has come to.  $100 a month? The goal was to be making more than $100 a day not too long ago.

Pathetic. 

My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.

It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.

My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.

It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.

No, your comment was insulting to the OP, which you've just doubled down on by adding sad to the list... so I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.

Quote from: alistaircotton on July 20, 2018, 13:16

My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.

It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.

No, your comment was insulting to the OP, which you've just doubled down on by adding sad to the list... so I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.

It was about the industry. That's why it reads "one and can scarcely believe that this is what stock has come to" and then re-affirmed with "My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards".

So whatever you are doubling down on and taking offence about, on behalf of someone else who has not expressed offence themselves, simply doesn't exist.

Those who were here at that start of all of this will remember how a bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day upped their respective games together. At first, our work was laughed at and ridiculed in online forums by the stock production "pros". But collectively we disrupted an entire industry and brought down giants.

That's why it's pathetic and sad that this is what stock has come to - because nobody is benefiting from those early creative efforts if a portfolio of new images cannot make a reasonable return.

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on July 20, 2018, 17:43

Quote from: alistaircotton on July 20, 2018, 13:16

My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.

It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.

No, your comment was insulting to the OP, which you've just doubled down on by adding sad to the list... so I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.

It was about the industry. That's why it reads "one and can scarcely believe that this is what stock has come to" and then re-affirmed with "My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards".

So whatever you are doubling down on and taking offence about, on behalf of someone else who has not expressed offence themselves, simply doesn't exist.

Those who were here at that start of all of this will remember how a bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day upped their respective games together. At first, our work was laughed at and ridiculed in online forums by the stock production "pros". But collectively we disrupted an entire industry and brought down giants.

That's why it's pathetic and sad that this is what stock has come to - because nobody is benefiting from those early creative efforts if a portfolio of new images cannot make a reasonable return.

Did those bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day hope one day to create an industry of equality where a portfolio of new images can make a reasonable return.  When they started there was a level playing field where everyone had a chance, now Shutterstock is stratified, which greatly favours the high earners and excludes new contributors just like the old existing agencies did.

Quote from: obj owl on July 21, 2018, 02:35

Quote from: alistaircotton on July 21, 2018, 01:53

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on July 20, 2018, 17:43

Quote from: alistaircotton on July 20, 2018, 13:16

My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.

It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.

No, your comment was insulting to the OP, which you've just doubled down on by adding sad to the list... so I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.

It was about the industry. That's why it reads "one and can scarcely believe that this is what stock has come to" and then re-affirmed with "My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards".

So whatever you are doubling down on and taking offence about, on behalf of someone else who has not expressed offence themselves, simply doesn't exist.

Those who were here at that start of all of this will remember how a bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day upped their respective games together. At first, our work was laughed at and ridiculed in online forums by the stock production "pros". But collectively we disrupted an entire industry and brought down giants.

That's why it's pathetic and sad that this is what stock has come to - because nobody is benefiting from those early creative efforts if a portfolio of new images cannot make a reasonable return.

Did those bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day hope one day to create an industry of equality where a portfolio of new images can make a reasonable return.  When they started there was a level playing field where everyone had a chance, now Shutterstock is stratified, which greatly favours the high earners and excludes new contributors just like the old existing agencies did.

Interesting....many on here believe the opposite ;-).

That may still be the case, just depends which part of the strata you are on.

Quote from: obj owl on July 21, 2018, 03:00

Quote from: Pauws99 on July 21, 2018, 02:40

Quote from: obj owl on July 21, 2018, 02:35

Quote from: alistaircotton on July 21, 2018, 01:53

Quote from: SpaceStockFootage on July 20, 2018, 17:43

Quote from: alistaircotton on July 20, 2018, 13:16

My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards. Not about my goals or what our team is achieving, much less the pat on your own back self-affirming your own apparent giddying success.

It is really about someone asking if it's possible to make $100 a month from SS. It's sad - and pretty pathetic that this is where the industry has finds itself.

No, your comment was insulting to the OP, which you've just doubled down on by adding sad to the list... so I just thought I'd give you a taste of your own medicine.

It was about the industry. That's why it reads "one and can scarcely believe that this is what stock has come to" and then re-affirmed with "My comment is about how far this industry has gone backwards".

So whatever you are doubling down on and taking offence about, on behalf of someone else who has not expressed offence themselves, simply doesn't exist.

Those who were here at that start of all of this will remember how a bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day upped their respective games together. At first, our work was laughed at and ridiculed in online forums by the stock production "pros". But collectively we disrupted an entire industry and brought down giants.

That's why it's pathetic and sad that this is what stock has come to - because nobody is benefiting from those early creative efforts if a portfolio of new images cannot make a reasonable return.

Did those bunch of amateurs with no hope of contributing to the existing agencies of the day hope one day to create an industry of equality where a portfolio of new images can make a reasonable return.  When they started there was a level playing field where everyone had a chance, now Shutterstock is stratified, which greatly favours the high earners and excludes new contributors just like the old existing agencies did.

Interesting....many on here believe the opposite ;-).

That may still be the case, just depends which part of the strata you are on.

i agree. i see in fotolia many established photographer uploading nothing in the lat years still earning a lot due to th mechanism of these agencies while those who wanted to improve and upload a lot struggle. i hope every agency kill the popular tab, even losing the sales of y popular images, and use other categories.