January 2010 earnings breakdown - DPChallenge Forums

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

02/01/2010 12:11:24 PM · #1

This is my stock photography sales statistic for January 2010. You can find a complete list of stock photography agencies that I work with here.

These are for me the best 4 performing stock agencies for January 2010:

1. DepositPhotos
2. Shutterstock
3. Cutcaster
4. Fotolia

Well, January was a good month with some surprises, but ... most agencies were only even with December, but still lower then last November. The two agencies that made January to a good month were DepositPhotos and Cucaster. DepositPhotos pulled up to the first rank because of its promotion and affiliate program, and Cucaster came in with two extended license sales. It was the best month ever for Cutcaster, DepositPhotos, Graphic Leftover, and Zoonar.

If you like to see the graphics sharp and lager, please go to my blog article and click on the graphic:
//photoinfos.blogspot.com/2010/02/stock-photography-sales-statistic.html

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/01/2010 12:41:34 PM · #2

This would be more meaningful if there was a total figure associated. But I suppose that's nobody's business but yours...

R.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/01/2010 01:11:21 PM · #3

It is not so interesting for this statistic how much I made, but how is it diversified and how is the development. Many Stock Photographer say that they only upload images to the big 6, but then the small agencies bring from me ~ 1/4 of my earnings. The other graphic shows that there is always and up and down from month to month, but the big picture is that there is an up over a longer period of time. Interestingly two small agencies were the savers for me this month. As I got all the money out of the Promo from DepositPhotos, and who knows if I will have more EL's at Cutcaster in February ... I ask myself the question: How will this impact my earnings in February?

alfresco

Nikon D700

02/02/2010 09:37:30 AM · #4

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

This would be more meaningful if there was a total figure associated. But I suppose that's nobody's business but yours...

R.

I disagree - this is exceptionally meaningful and useful information ... as Henrik says, the development of diversification. Unless, of course, by 'total figure associated' you were looking for '100%'. :)

Henrik - do you maintain the same set of images on each site (within reason)? and related: Do all sites consume approximately the same amount of time for you? ie - is your photo investment and time investment across the sites approximately the same, or do one or two sites consume more time on your part?

02/02/2010 11:39:35 AM · #5

my workflow

- shooting image
- upload into folder set #date of shoot#
- converting image from raw to jpg and saving them into folder editing
- editing images and saving them into folder keywording
- keywording images and move them into folder pool
- creating sets of 5 images into the upload and archive folder structure.
+ stockimages
+ 1-50
+ 1
+ 2
+ ...
+ 51-100
+ 51
+ ...
- uploading to all agencies

With agencies that I am longer I only have to upload the new image and that goes relatively quickly. If I add a new agency then I always upload the new images and whenever I have time I add the the older images.

With iStockPhoto I am behind because of there upload limit and there time consuming submitting process.

If a agency has ftp then I use it, because it is faster. Some agencies take more time then others. I think the fastest submitting process is with YAY Micro. And iStockPhoto and Photocase are more time consuming. Big Stock Photo, Shutterstock and Dreamstime are in the middle.

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

02/02/2010 11:40:59 AM · #6

in the moment I try to upload about 1-3 sets (5 images per set) of images per week

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/02/2010 12:07:38 PM · #7

Well, the "total figure" I had in mind could just as well be "number of images sold", doesn't have to be "how much you made". My point is, that this diversification (and it IS interesting, fascinating even, to see that being described so graphically), is greatly meaningful if it represents hundreds of images sold monthly, less so if it represents a couple dozen monthly. Kind of like sampling in polls, you know?

Didn't mean to step on anyone's toes; I didn't say the information had no meaning, just that it would be more meaningful if there was a scale attached to it.

R.