As I was filtering through my stack of 1099-MISC's, I started looking into how my sales have changed in the past three years. Thought I'd share the percentages to show the extent (anecdotally) of the agency gap between Shutterstock and Pond5 and everything else. The four agencies I've always been a consistent contributor on are SS, P5, iStock, and Revo.

2012: SS: 41%, P5: 30%, iStock: 11%, Revo: 11%, Other (photo-only): 7% -- Avg per/mo: $378 USD
2013: SS: 45%, P5: 45%, iStock: 5%, Revo: 2%, Other: 3%  -- Avg per/mo: $701 USD
2014 (to-date): SS: 52%, P5: 41%, iStock: 4%, Revo: 2%, Other: 1%  -- Avg per/mo: $860 USD

Interestingly, I have done very little to improve my portfolio since early 2013, yet I have had sales steadily increasing - just only from SS and P5. Always curious about what other agencies are out there and worth contributing to, but doesn't look like any have the slightest chance of being competitive. I suppose it's the high cost of maintaining a full and varied portfolio of HQ video..

Anyone else seeing a similar trend of improving sales from the two great stock video overlords?

Hey All,

So I'm relatively new to this stock thing, I have about 100 files on DT and SS respectively, maybe 400 total among all agencies. Maybe $.30 here for a subscription purchase, the occasional $2.00 for a larger image credit purchase, etc. Then I submitted some videos to SS and a few sold which.. quadrupled my earnings.

So here's what I'm wondering: if I make as much in one subscription video sale as I make in 60 subscription image sales... why is there not a mass exodus of contributors from stills to video?

I own a Canon 60D so it's a decent tool for both stills and video, seems to me that my time is best invested in video. I'm wondering if you all feel the same or, if not, why stick with photography and not shoot stock video?