Comments on: Which Microstock Websites Provide the Most Revenue?

By: Lee Torrens

Lee Torrens — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:20:03 +0000

Hi Allievn,

That looks about right to me. Remember the above article is comparing revenue, not sales. Shutterstock sell high volume with low per-sale revenue.

Also consider the size of your portfolio. Until your sales figures rise considerably there’s insufficient sample data to draw too many conclusions. Even my figures above are inaccurate when I compare them against the results of our market’s top performers.

-Lee

By: allievn

allievn — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:01:23 +0000

I am totaly confused. I sold the following amount of photos in the past 3 months; Dreamstime 1, Fotolia 8, iStock 4, Big Stock 6.

Since beeing accepted at Shutterstock last week I have sold 40 photos in 4 days? How can that be?

allievn

By: Claudio

Claudio — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:04:23 +0000

Not sure why but I would advice it is because it has many localised sites in many languages and so it really sales worldwide.

By: Claudio

Claudio — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:02:49 +0000

My best performing site is Fotolia; now I have a larger portfolio there (I maily upload there since it’s the best selling site for me), but for about 6 months I had the same portfolio there and on Dreamstime, so I was able to compare results: Fotolia sales were about 3 times higher.

By: LFChavier

LFChavier — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 02:58:27 +0000

Hi Lee,

Congratulations, your blog is awesome!

My revenue ranking for the last 5 months is:
1. iStockphoto
2. Shutterstock
3. Dreamstime
4. StockXpert
5. LuckyOliver
6. Fotolia
7. BigStockPhoto
8. SnapVillage (zero)

I had some extended license sales from iStock, Shutterstock, Dreamstime and LuckyOliver.

Steve, I also hope that someday SnapVillage is up to the Corbis brand… Still waiting…

Regards,

Luis

By: Steve Risset

Steve Risset — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 06:32:51 +0000

Hi Lee,

I just started contributing to shutterstock and my limited portfolio is already performing at iStock levels. Will have to wait and see how things play out. Shutterstock seems to get pretty good volume due to their subscription model and I have noticed I am getting a broader download distribution on the site.

Dreamstime continues to be weak in terms of sales and exposure. Additionally, their attempt to copy shutterstock with a subscription model has not had a very high level of success as their traffic volume is much lower.

I also just signed up with SnapVillage – Corbis’s entry into micro stock – but they have a long way to go before their site is user friendly and bug free.

I would be very interested to hear other people’s experiences!

By: Lee Torrens

Lee Torrens — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:24:48 +0000

Hi Steve,

Yes, iStockphoto are certainly the market leader. Perhaps look at contributing to more agencies so you can better compare how much difference exclusivity would make for you.

By: Steve Rosset

Steve Rosset — Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:01:49 +0000

I got into the microstock business in late October and am currently uploading to iStock and Dreamstime. I have to say thus far iStock is far more lucrative because the site has substantially more traffic. Both my image views and sales volume are double that of Dreamstime with the same portfolio. In my opinion Dreamstime is struggling to grow their site visitor numbers and the reduced exposure has the obvious effect on sales. Additionally, my upload success rate is substantially higher with iStock and the overall search ability, volume of content and navigation are all far superior on iStock. For now I will continue to contribute to both but am seriously considering going exclusive with iStock in the near future.

I am curious to hear what other photographers are experiencing so I will stay tuned to your great site.

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 07 May 2007 18:29:02 +0000

Shutterstock does well for me if I consistantly upload new images. As for ongoing sales without new additions I prefer Dreamstime and Fotolia. iStock has slipped a lot for me, but is finally starting to pick up again.

I would have to say that I am actually impressed with LuckyOliver. Very few sales yet (none of the new agencies really do), but they are unique and seem targeted to a different crowd.

By: Rich B

Rich B — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 00:46:48 +0000

I have yet to actually upload anything to a website . Shutterstock will not accept anything less then 4.0 megapixels and even though my camera is a 4.0 , most of my images only get to 3.9mp . I am forced to try a site that might allow 3.9 and be happy with my pic’s .