I agree with your other points too, though I would add that agencies incur costs to review/inspect and host images, many of which never sell. This offsets the royalties they keep from the contributors who never reach payout. While I think it would be cool if they did an annual payout for people who didn’t reach the threshold, the contributors enter the agreements fully informed about the situation and aware of the risks (at least that’s what they agree to having read when they register).

-Lee

Three years ago (in the days when DT published all the data) I did an analysis of how many members had sold how many photos. The site had almost exactly 10,000 members of whom 14 had sold more than 10,000 photos; 100 (that’s 1%) had sold more than 2,500; 1,100 (10%) had sold more than 200 and achieved payout level and 8,885 had sold fewer than needed for a pauout. So 90% had got nothing, only 1% had made more than $1,250 and fewer than 0.2% had made more than $5,000.

When I described this pattern on an iStock forum where earnings prospects were being discussed (saying it was from somewhere else – no name given – but iS probably had a similar distribution) my post was deleted with such alacrity that I could only presume that the shape of iStock’s graph was not just similar, but identical. In fact, the sample is so large that it is almost inevitable that it applies across the entire industry.

The long tail is, of course, extremely valuable to companies, because it represents earnings that they don’t have to pay any commission on for a very, very long time – and in many cases the commission may never be claimed at all. Who is getting the commission from all those submitters who have died without passing on their account details to their heirs? Their portfolios effectively become the private property of the sites that have them (apart from Shutterstock and one or two other honorable exceptions, that send off cheques at payout level without you having to put in a request).

Well put. My experience in the traditional market place helped me to come to the same conclusions several years ago, in particular with specialized photos. Without applying the “Long Tail” analysis it was clear to me that specialized photos sell to a small audience and therefore could not be supported by such small per sale revenue. Furthermore, buyers with specialized needs are willing to pay more. In general, rare subject matter images will sell fewer times. A case in point… Photograph a rare butterfly, and then photograph a monarch. There will be more competition for monarch photos, but in the end the monarch photo will out perform the rare butterfly photo. To earn as much, (or more) the rare butterfly photo should be sold for a higher price, i.e. in the traditional marketplace. Microstock gives away these rare images, and they do not / will not reach their potential. There is a “dumbing down” effect that happens when people only shoot what is common and expected. Supporting the “fringe” images requires more than a few dollars in revenue. Check out the collections of the “stars” and you will find “shoot for the middle” totally obvious, (well executed, but predictable) collections. The long tail images help out the agency by making the collection seem very diverse, but as you have concluded the benefit is biased to the agencies, not the contributors.

Don Farrall

Was thinking whilst reading that the ‘long-tail’ niche subjects belong at a different price point, simply because they are bought by people that have a specific need them. Then you confirmed that obviously, at the end of the article. However, i can’t see the earnings generated from these things as anything more than supplemental.

Nice plug for Tassie (mania), though. I think I split my chin open on the tesselated pavement, as a kid, on a family holiday on the south of the island.

I have suggested in my Squidoo lens on Microstock that you can (possibly) make good money from this endeavour. I stand by that, and the fact that many do, implies it is beyond debate. Obviously it’s not guaranteed!

For example I point out that one photographer is reported to have earned over $10,000 for a photo of his parents! (As repoted on ABC News) (proof supplied-try link above)

Yes a small number make the lions share, and most make only modest amounts. But this is the same with almost all human endeavour. The long tail principal applies to most business activity, as you point out. And the 80/20 principal is well understood. 20% of sales personel make 80% of the sales income in many companies, for instance. This is similar in most industries. That’s not a reason for not trying a business activity, or to dismiss it.

Nevertheless, it’s surely true that photographers that have significant talent, creativity and commitment may potentially make some decent income for their efforts, especially if they learn all they can and follow sites like yours.

However, it’s obviously not a gold mine, and I mainly encourage people to do it for fun or as a profitable pastime, or part-time income idea, and only consider it as a serious business if results suggest it’s worthwhile.

Also: All business is subject to supply and demand, we must live with it, or do something else. You have suggested your sales are fairly consistant, despite the huge growth in contributions, and this may be because the number of buyers is growing fast aswell, as more and more people/businesses go online, or discover Microstock.

Cheers, John.

But this holds true also for the artist’s side. Nobody is always in the best possible shape, so some pictures will neccessarily be weaker than others.

You might be able to soften the curve by choosing the right niche, but I am convinced that you can never really “beat” the long tail.