Surprising Trends In Photographer Earnings

Posted on 1/2/2009 by Jim Pickerell | Printable Version | Comments (8)

There are countless stories about what best-selling stock photographers earn. However, the earnings of photographers a little farther down the food chain are more germane. It is useful to consider the likely earnings of the 50 most successful contributors to Getty Images' creative collections (rights-managed and royalty-free) and compare these figures with iStockphoto's 50 most successful photographers, paying particular attention to the probable earnings of the 50th photographer on the list.

Get the Full Article (2 Credits)

Have an Account?

Access to this site is an exclusive benefit for you. Enter your username and password in the form above. If you don't remember your password you can reset it at any time.

Keep me logged in

Forgot your password?

New to Selling Stock?

Selling Stock is an on-line newsletter that reports on developing trends in the stock photo industry. It is updated at least twice a month. On-line subscribers receive e-mail notification whenever new stories are posted. Archives containing stories going back to late 1995 are fully available to subscribers.

Buy Credits

Copyright © 2009 Jim Pickerell. The above article may not be copied, reproduced, excerpted or distributed in any manner without written permission from the author. All requests should be submitted to Selling Stock at 10319 Westlake Drive, Suite 162, Bethesda, MD 20817, phone 301-461-7627, e-mail: wvz@fpcubgbf.pbz

Jim Pickerell is founder of www.selling-stock.com, an online newsletter that publishes daily. He is also available for personal telephone consultations on pricing and other matters related to stock photography. He occasionally acts as an expert witness on matters related to stock photography. For his current curriculum vitae go to: http://www.jimpickerell.com/Curriculum-Vitae.aspx.

Comments

Jonathan Ross Posted Jan 2, 2009
Hi Jim,

I appreciate the comments but your numbers on my side are off for the Getty and third party distributors collection from Getty. Either that or I am in the very top and I don't think that is true. The reason for testing Micro is never been more necessary to be able to play this game in the future. I made a post about Micro stock here a week or so ago and made a poor statement that wasn't clear. I stated that a test in Micro needed to be several thousand. That was a poor assessment of how we approached Micro at first. We spent money on only 100 images for about the first year and after analyzing these numbers we came to the realization that many more needed to be placed to get good data and our cost per image had to drop. We also found reading the blogs that the real top dogs in Micro are building a following of buyers and this is being done through blogging but they also say you must have several thousand images to really build the following and support your efforts. I hope that was a better explanation. However it is clear to us through our returns in Micro and our dwindling return through Macro that we will be investing again in 09" into the Micro market and expect sales to increase from the raise in price cost. Also the quality will keep getting better I am quite sure. With that quality increase in Micro if the subject matter is right you could be seeing a much smaller portfolio needed to make a decent return of income.

Best,
Jonathan Ross

Gerard Fritz Posted Jan 2, 2009
As RF and RM image pricing slides downward with pressure from microstock, the question of "what's a photographer to do" might be irrelevant. The entire image pool (regardless of RF, RR, RM, Micro status) will drain downward to a common level. The effect being all pricing will approach micro levels eventually. And, just as RF did, when Micro dominates you can expect them to raise prices...because they can.

Greg Ceo Posted Jan 2, 2009
A business in Micro is based on a high volume of sales while constantly pumping out lots and lots and lots of new pictures. This leads me to believe that photographers making money will not be in a position to make unique images. Art Buyers of unique pictures will have to look elsewhere for their product, either hiring a photographer and shooting the job or finding the image via RM stock files. A company like Getty will always have a brand like "Stone" or "Stone +" for the high end work, but less and less photographers will be able to afford to contribute to these brands on a regular basis and sales will eventually be spotty at best. So there are two choices: become a production house of generic images or find another source of income while contributing to RM stock.

Bill Brooks Posted Jan 2, 2009
The 50th ranked Getty Creative photographer may also have many other RM/RF images at Corbis, Masterfile, Alamy etc so his Getty Creative earnings may only be part of his total stock income. On the other hand the 50th ranked EXCLUSIVE istockphoto photographer only receives income from istockphoto, so your figures represent all of his stock income. Therefore the income of the istockphoto photographer may not be as close to the income of the Getty Creative photographer as your analysis would indicate. The moral of the story is to have as many different images in as many different stock libraries as possible. This is not as difficult as it sounds, as, depending on the phase of the moon, one editor's RM reject is another editor's RM select.

Jonathan Ross Posted Jan 2, 2009
Bill,

I think you make a very good point.

Thanks,
Jonathan Ross

Jim Pawell Posted Jan 3, 2009
Speaking as the new owner of a boutique agency, I agree with Bill's reminder that photographers should find as many suitable homes for different RM images as possible. When in October 2007 I purchased www.PhotoEditInc.com (which focuses on images of minority and ethnic students for textbook publishers), I was surprised to learn what a high percentage of its photographers earned mid five figures to low six figures from such a small agency.

Don Farrall Posted Jan 3, 2009
Jim,

If the conclusion from this analysis is that traditional (macro RF) or RM shooters should be moving to microstock because it offers a better potential for return, well… I remain unconvinced.

As a long time traditional RF and RM Getty contributor, I do believe that your dollar numbers for Getty contributors are a reasonable guess. I also believe that the earnings of the 51st-250th top Getty earners are a relevant point of consideration, but I do realize that it is impossible to know what the actual numbers for those contributors are. Clearly there are more microstock photographers earning “something” for their involvement in the process, than there are traditional stock shooters.

At the moment there may well be a reason to look at all of the data and conclude that traditional stock photography is on a downward trend, and microstock is on an upward trend. And that therefore “smart” photographers who don’t have their head in the sand, should move some, if not all, of their effort, into this new image marketing model.

This kind of thinking totally ignores the evolutionary changes that will be, or are, happening to the microstock environment because of the influx of new players who were former traditional stock producers. As the pie splits the slices are going to get thinner, and they are already pretty slim by my standards. I don’t pretend to think that anything I say is going to stop this from happening. I have traditional stock producer acquaintances who I know are moving in this direction. Many of them fought the battle for respect when they first began selling under the Royalty Free model. I did as well. But I don’t see the move to microstock in such direct comparative terms.

There has been very little discussion anywhere about what kind of images that are best suited to these varied marketing models. I have very strong feelings that to earn the most, some material should be RM, and that some should be sold as $100 -$500 royalty free. I would even agree that there are some images that by their “consumer nature” belong on sale at microstock prices. But I do not believe for a minute that on whole what has been considered “commercial stock photography” should be sold under the microstock model. The buyers are the winners under this model, so are some agencies, but not professional image suppliers.

By staying out of microstock, ( yes I have tested the waters, but I do not intend to invest in microstock ) I am betting that microstock has already peaked, from a contributors point of $ view. That the few talented early adopters had an easier time establishing themselves as a brand, ( a necessary component that should not be underestimated ) than newly entering producers are going to have. I further believe that the RPI will only support very efficient bare-bones shoots. The necessity of volume will make prior efforts look like child’s play, and that the ever-increasing volume of better and better work will result in fewer sales per image and a lower RPI. Is anyone asking how many serious volume, serious quality producers microstock can support?

I am familiar with the work produced by Jonathan Ross, and I sympathize with his situation. A lot of big producers form the traditional RF side have seen devastating drops in sales. This is clearly a result of microsock. I am not a big producer, it took me ten years to get 2000+ images on Getty, and for the most part I only see sales form the most recent few hundred images. Microstock has hurt my stock sales quite a bit as well, though of late I think it is the state of the economy that is to blame for a continued drop. In any event, for what I shoot, for what I am good at, microstock is not a viable answer. I am just saying that running to microstock because traditional stock sales are in the tank is not going to be the answer for everyone. For me this is not about how much my images sell for on an individual sales basis, it’s about an annual income, plain and simple. I do not pretend to take the high road of principal here.

I am betting that I will be better off raising the bar and working toward ever more difficult imagery to duplicate, striving for sales to people for whom the quality and uniqueness of the images is more important than how cheap the images are.

Jonathan Ross Posted Jan 5, 2009
Hi Don,

Thank you for your sympathies but I am doing pretty good so far through the battle. Now the economy and the stock photography industry are in a bit of a hurt. I just had the second biggest year in sales ever for our company and we have another 2000 images to upload in the loop. My company closed it's studio doors to drop our overhead through what I think will be a slow year but we will still be on location full time. We had to work much harder than we ever have the last couple of years but we were able to offset the loss of income through our furthered efforts. If it wasn't for Micro sales and what they did to this industry yea, I would be buying property in several parts of the world right now but those changes took place for everyone in stock. My only reason to venture into Micro is to be in position with a new emerging market. We did it 11 years ago with RF when a lot of RM's wouldn't come over and then Kaboom the sales exploded. Then they said well that is it and Boom they went even higher. I don't expect Kaboom from MIcro but who knows and for the small amount of effort it took to actually do the work to get the data is worth every penny in itself. We plan on producing a lot of RM as well for this year. We are at 14,000 images across all markets with more images to come and climbing in 09'. I see a lot of opportunity in 09' and focus on diversification.
Thanks,
Jonathan Ross

Post Comment