Comments on: Why Microstockers Sell Microstock

By: William Manning

William Manning — Wed, 05 May 2010 20:13:08 +0000

Interesting post. I do agree with some of what is said in your post, but all to often in the discussion between the differences of the two business models is the cost of doing business. I always hear about how much money the photographer makes from selling their pictures but I never hear what it cost them to produce the image. For those of us out there posting information about micro or macro stock I believe we need to be honest with our readers. Stock photography is the only industry that I know of where the manufacturer (photographer) disregards their overhead to produce their product (photograph). Overhead includes not only equipment, model, travel, office, costs etc… but also time. The truth of the matter is the prices for photography from both business models is very low. Photographers are as guilty as any other party when it comes to low prices. I have been involved with stock photography for about 18 years and know very well what kind of return is needed to truly consider a check as a salary. If interested I have posted on my blog an article concerning the stock photography business at http://williammanning.com/blog/2010/04/business-matters/is-the-new-stock-photography-business-model-right-for-you/.

I wish all stock photographers well and hope we can spread the truth about this business model as the post by Don Farrall does well.

By: Don Farrall

Don Farrall — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 20:07:26 +0000

As a traditional stock producer I find the suggestion that $60,000 per year income is something to be considered a viable business model. That might be OK if the entire $60,000 was profit, but beyond RPI is ROI. Producing 5000 images has it’s own costs. I have put a little time into testing the waters of microstock, both with stills and video and I remain ever convinced that the microstock model is little more than a hoax that lures people in and then does not deliver. Yes a few people are making a little money, but mostly a lot of people are having some fun, and learning something, but the money is not good, and it surely doesn’t seem to be getting any better. Have fun, but don’t mistake this for a long-term occupation.

By: Zbynek Burival

Zbynek Burival — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:11:42 +0000

RPI $1 per month is true only for few top contributors, for average microstockers with portfolio under 1000 pictures is $1-3 per YAER closer to the reality. I have no precise numbers for those of about 5000 pics online but I bet for those average ones it is bellow $1 month also.
It also highly depends when did you start – who did start in the early days of microstock usually has much better statistics then those who did in 2008 or later.

By: D Bukach

D Bukach — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 04:23:01 +0000

Although I expect that my images are not what microstock companies generally sell in high volumes, my experience suggests that earning $1 per image per month is very optimistic. My exclusive istock images get around $3 per year (instead of $12), and I’d expect that many others are in my position. Plus there is the issue that because istock restricts uploads (in my case to 50 per week), it takes significant time to reach 5000 images (two years if all your images were accepted, and more like 3 years given my acceptance rate).

Don’t get me wrong, I think there is money to be made, but it is very much a long term game and is a hard one to build into a full time enterprise – and nobody really knows where any of this is going to lead to!

By: Daniel Kafer

Daniel Kafer — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:55:27 +0000

Interesting acticle. However I wonder if microstock images that has been added the last 6 month also make 1$ pr month. In my experience a lot of really good images that has been added recently don’t sell very well.

If you go through various images on for example fotolia, I think it is seldom you see new images sell really well, even when looking at Yuri’s portfolio, you need to go back quite a few pages before anything has sold more than 3-4 times.

With my own portfolio I have the same experience, some of the old stuff keep selling while the new and better stuff doesn’t.

So I wonder if any newcomers will ever be able to make a living from 5000 or so images.

By: studio54

studio54 — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 15:26:02 +0000

Very well said. I subscribe to this. The article itself is fine, i just mind the idea that it convinces an 18 year old kid to buy a 300$ camera and submitting 200 photos than he’s bored, multiply that by thousands of persons around the world and you find that half the sale credits go to guys that don’t even make a payout.
My honest opinion is that 20-25% of all dl credits from micro go to “contributors” that submitted 50-100 files and gave up, and there are tens of thousands of them, that translates in millions of dollars a year.

By: Lee Torrens

Lee Torrens — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 04:51:37 +0000

Hey Sean, you know I’m a fan of your straight talk and I agree with your overall sentiment about bringing in competition. However, while it’s a side-effect, it was not the impetus for writing this post.

My focus was on education and helping move the conversation on from “why would anyone ever do that” to something more constructive. It’s actually been a long time since I’ve written anything with the specific goal of ‘recruitment’, though I’m aware it’s one of the more significant results of almost everything I do.

Keep up the good fight!

By: Sean Locke

Sean Locke — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:41:54 +0000

Yes, that’s the same “competition” comment that comes up whenever I make the point about not trying to lure new competition to your business area. The post is not directed to current contributors – we’re already in the business, and shouldn’t be concerned about trying to make others share a point of view. Established micro contributors know that every blog or website about “make money with your snaps” or “why you should do micro” can add up to a detrimental effect.

If you have a pond to fish at, it’s no harm if people find their way there on their own, but if you go out and recruit people with new rods and lures, perhaps you won’t catch as many next time.

Nothing against Lee, of course – he’s a great writer, but his focus is more on contributor services than contributing.

By: hfng

hfng — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:36:21 +0000

Great article. It’s easy to start making something but hard to sustain a livelihood and support a family.

By: Pawel Simon

Pawel Simon — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:58:34 +0000

I think is up to each individual to see what works better,for his own personality and way of working. And taking in account this choosing your niche,or way of living from photography. Stock photography is a long term commitment if you want to see some return… and also a business where the photographer needs to produce in big quantity and quality. So depending on that each person needs to evaluate if wants or not go in that way…Microstock can be a good way of getting experience. Thank for your article Lee.