Author Topic: 2008 Microstock Photographers Survey [The Results] (Read 33672 times)

Smiling Jack · « **Reply #25 on:** March 20, 2009, 22:08 »

Thanks Leaf - for a very good and informative survey
Smiling Jack

lisafx · « **Reply #26 on:** March 21, 2009, 10:39 »

Really interesting information! Thanks for taking the time to compile it Tyler

madelaide · « **Reply #27 on:** March 21, 2009, 16:03 »

Can we use YouTube for commercial purposes?

leaf · « **Reply #28 on:** March 24, 2009, 09:35 »

Here are two more little graphs. One displaying the top performing site according to RPI, and one of the number of photographers in each income bracket.

gunnar3000 · « **Reply #29 on:** March 26, 2009, 16:33 »

interesting statistics... thank you leaf!!!!
I like those numbers

Fred · « **Reply #30 on:** March 27, 2009, 01:21 »

Thanks Tyler, This is great stuff.

If you divide the average gross annual earnings ($10076.68) by average number of images online (1156.4) you get an average of earnings of $8.71 per image per year. I have no idea if this is a valid analysis but I find it interesting.

c h e e r s
fred

leaf · « **Reply #31 on:** March 27, 2009, 02:19 »

Yeah, that is probably not too far off, but the people with really great portfolios are getting much higher $/pic/year than that, and the people with 10 crappy pictures are getting 0 $/pic/year

The problem with averages in microstock is that the playing field is so spread out, it doesn't really work. People hear of the $1,000,000 istock is giving to it's contributors every week then think, yeah well it is going to 100,000 photographers - that is only $10 each.. HA what a rip off. What they don't realize is that a small % of the photographers are taking the majority of the $1,000,000 giving them a decent paycheck.