The results of the stock income survey I posted in January are in with 55 photographers supplying data. The gross 2005 revenue for these photographers was $8,490,187, up 9.7% from 2004. The income from stock was 78% of the total or $6,586,506.
When compared to the 172 people who responded to our 2003 survey and the 97 respondents to the 2001 survey, the number of respondents this time was very disappointing. Consequently the results may not be as representative as I had hoped. That should be taken into consideration as you review these numbers. Nevertheless, at least some of the results seem to track well with what I think is happening in the industry.
The average gross income for the photographers responding was $154,367 and the median income was $126,000. The average stock income was $119,755 or 78% of the gross. Comparing these results to previous surveys the gross income and the stock income are maybe a little high, but about what might have been expected. The results are up from 2003, but about the same as in 2001 and down from 2000.
|
|
Total Income
|
Average Photographer Income
|
Average Stock Income
|
Percent Income From Stock
|
|
2000
|
$28,149,000
|
$163,657
|
$109,659
|
67%
|
|
2001
|
$27,155,121
|
$157,878
|
$108,935
|
69%
|
|
2002
|
$24,244,557
|
$140,956
|
$94,440
|
67%
|
|
2005
|
$8,490,187
|
$154,367
|
$119,755
|
78%
|
It is clear that we got a higher percentage of successful stock photographers responding to this survey than was the case in previous surveys. 67% of total respondents had gross incomes in excess of $70,000. In 2003 (for the 2002 year) only 36% of respondents had income above $70,000 (See chart below), and in all previous surveys the percentage in this category ranged from the mid 30% to the mid 40%. If we had had a higher percentage of people earning less than $70,000 that would certainly have lowered the averages.
| Year |
1997
|
1998
|
1999
|
2000A
|
2000B
|
2001
|
2002
|
2005
|
| Total Respondents to Survey |
206
|
185
|
138
|
97
|
172
|
172
|
172
|
55
|
| Gross Income |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Over $400,000 |
6
|
6
|
4
|
5
|
12
|
11
|
9
|
3
|
| $250,000 to $400,000 |
13
|
12
|
11
|
5
|
10
|
10
|
9
|
6
|
| $150,000 to $250,000 |
14
|
18
|
7
|
7
|
13
|
16
|
15
|
11
|
| $100,000 to $150,000 |
24
|
11
|
17
|
9
|
16
|
18
|
10
|
8
|
| $70,000 to $100,000 |
13
|
18
|
23
|
16
|
22
|
10
|
20
|
9
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total In High Income Categories (HIC) |
70
|
65
|
62
|
42
|
73
|
65
|
63
|
37
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Percent of Total HIC Responding to Survey |
34%
|
35%
|
45%
|
43%
|
42%
|
37%
|
36%
|
67%
|
The unexplained question we're left with is what does the much higher percentage of those earning over $70,000 mean? It could mean that all photographers are making more money today. But, I suspect that is not the case. It could mean that a lot of the people at the lower end have lost interest in stock or dropped out of the business and that could also explain the low response rate. On the other hand I do know that the number of people subscribing to Selling Stock has been steadily, if very slightly, increasing which might indicate that there is a continuing interest in stock photography.
It may have had something to do with the way the survey was structured, presented and promoted although I tried to use most of the same techniques as in previous surveys.
Unfortunately, we can only guess at the answers here, but they are issues worth pondering.
Expenses
I asked photographers to supply "Overall Photography Expenses" for 2004 and 2005 and got very mixed results. According to the numbers supplied the average photographer spent 30% of total revenue to generate his/her 2005 income. This appears low to me. In our 2001 survey when I asked a similar question the average expenses were 43% of total revenue generated. I don't think it has gotten cheaper in the last few years to produce stock images. If anything, I think it has become more expensive.
It is interesting to note that the photographer with the highest gross revenue in this survey spend 56% of it to generate that revenue. While 45% of the photographers had expenses between 20% and 60% of their gross revenues there were some who had expenses of less than 10% and other over 80%. A full 30% said they had expenses that were below 20% of their gross revenue.
Many with extremely low expenses also reported earning significant revenue. I doubt they could be earning these amounts with little or no expenses and am forced to conclude that some of these misunderstood the question. It is possible that a high earner might have decided, for one reason or another, to stop producing. When that happens royalties tend to continue to flow for several years and this could explain those with high income with relatively little expenses.
Then there were those with very high expenses and it is hard to see how they were taking enough money out of their businesses to support themselves. It is possible that some of these had other sources of income to support themselves, or that they decided to borrow money and plow it into more production in an effort to leverage their position in hopes of generating even larger royalties in the future. It is also possible that people with low revenues and just getting started in the business, spent a huge high proportion of the revenue generated on new production as they endeavor to build a business and wait for royalties to begin to flow.
Even taking all these things into account it seems to me that the expense figures are untrustworthy. Based on my experience in the industry I am inclined to believe that average expenses for most photographers are closer to 45% to 50% than to 30%.
RM and RF
Only about 21% of the revenue reported was earned from RF production, but 35% of those who received any revenue from RF earned over $100,000 from that source. A slightly lower percentage (33%) of RM producers earned over $100,000. This would indicate that it is possible to earn significant revenue producing either RF or RM. However, there is no question that there are many more photographers producing RM leading to much fiercer competition in the rights managed area.
The person with the highest stock photo income earned $626,383 with 61% of it from RM and 39% from RF.
Getty, Corbis, Jupiter
The amount of income that came from the majors provides a few surprises. Those photographers with the highest income earned it from multiple sources. Twenty-nine of the 55 photographers earned income from Getty for a total of $2,607,017 of 30% of the total for all photographers from all sources. Twenty photographers earned income from Corbis for a total of $1,238,647, about half of what the Getty photographers earned. Only 8 photographers reported earning any income from Jupiter which may be because Jupiter wholly owns so much of the work it licenses, or simply because we had such a low overall response rate.
The big surprise for me was that 46 earned income from sources other than the Big Three for a total of $2,342,918, almost as much as photographers earned from Getty. Some of these "other sources" included non-stock income (probably mostly assignments) and this amounted to $1,903, 681 in 2005. That's 22% of total income for some very successful "stock" photographers indicating that those who are producing stock are finding other ways to earn a portion of their living. If we can get a reasonable response to the next survey it will be interesting to see if this non-stock proportion begins to rise.
I also found it interesting that one person earned $456,000 from sources other than the three majors while the person who received the most from Getty got only $286,540 from them and nearly all of this photographer's income came from Getty.
Seven respondents earned 100% of their "stock income from direct sales to customers rather than through an agency or portal." The total they reported was $757,961 or an average of $108,280 per person.
|
|
Getty
|
Corbis
|
Jupiter
|
Other Sources
|
| Gross Income |
$2,607,017
|
$1,238,647
|
$107,101
|
$2,342,918
|
| Number Photographers |
29
|
20
|
8
|
46
|
| Average per Photographer |
$89,897
|
$61,932
|
$13,387
|
$50,933
|
| Highest Return For One Photographer |
$286,540
|
$235,356
|
$28,000
|
$465,000
|
SAA and ASMP
We also discovered that members of SAA and ASMP earned significantly more on average than all respondents combined. Twenty-four of the 2005 respondents were members of the SAA and 24 were members of ASMP. Twelve were members of both organizations. As might be expected since the organization was founded by Getty photographers 17 of the SAA members answering the survey had images with Getty while only 11 of the ASMP members had images on the Getty site.
The number represented by Corbis was more evenly split with 11 from ASMP and 10 from SAA. While SAA photographers made much more from Getty than those from ASMP, those from ASMP earned significantly more from sales either made directly to customers or agencies and portals other than the Big Three. For a breakdown see the chart below.
|
|
SAA Only
|
ASMP Only
|
All Respondents
|
| Gross Income |
$3,454,944
|
$1,238,647
|
$8,490,187
|
| Average Gross per Photog |
$157,839
|
$143,956
|
$154.367
|
| From Getty |
$1,766,956
|
$1,144,866
|
$2,607,017
|
| From Corbis |
$568,402
|
$614,595
|
$1,238,647
|
| From Jupiter |
$47,916
|
$28,000
|
$107,101
|
| From Other |
$508,403
|
$829,626
|
$2,342,918
|
It should be noted that the figures for the photographers in both the SAA and the ASMP are included in both these calculations and thus the sum of SAA and ASMP appears to be greater than the total of all photographers.
I was surprised that the photographers who responded only had a combined total of 27 full time staff. One had 4 staffers, another 3 and 3 had 2 full time assistants. The rest either had one or none. This tells me that almost none of the major stock photo production operations that are becoming so common responded to the survey.
Many of the respondents had been in the photography business for more than 20 years and the average for all 55 was 17 years and 3 months.