2007 Income Survey Results

Posted on 10/14/2008 by Jim Pickerell | Printable Version | Comments (6)

Selling Stock's self-employed photographer income survey accounts for close to $33 million in revenues generated by 238 respondents from 19 countries.

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 © 2008 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

Paul Melcher Posted Oct 14, 2008
Right,

but who is the happiest ?

Greg Ceo Posted Oct 14, 2008
OK, but how about a comparison table to past years??? Lets get some averages from the last 5 years to get a sense of where the industry is headed. Are photographers making more than last year? Or two years ago? Or three years ago?

Joseph Sohm Posted Oct 14, 2008
I think it's important to know what the highest and lowest are as all Bell Curves need reference points. It's helpful to know what the highest income earners produce, as over $500,000 does not say what the highs are. Are they $1 million or more?

Don Farrall Posted Oct 14, 2008
Why were only photographers from these three states included. I do not recall being asked to participate. State of residence seems totally irrelevant.

Don Farrall, Lincoln, Nebraska, a spot on the map between NYC and California. Being here has not been an issue with regard to being a serious player. www.donfarrall.com

To the person who asked, year over year revenues are down, across the board, at least for those from the middle up. This is true for me and every serious (non-micro) stock producer I know.

Tim Mcguire Posted Oct 14, 2008
Don and others,

If revenues are down, is that because of less volume (# of licenses), less revenue per license (lower license amounts), less production (lack of confidence in the business), or a combo of these factors. Any specific info is always helpful and appreciated.

For me, compared to 2 years ago, from an all RM stock income my stock business is down 10% in volume and down 10% on the average license amount (all RM). I also have not produced a lot in the previous two years because of low confidence in the stock business climate (the ability to cover production expenses and make profits). It hard to know how much effect the lack of new production has had. I'm sure it plays a substantial role but I get slightly mixed reviews from other photogs. Some are up who are still producing, some are holding steady, and the majority are down, whether producing or not.

Don Farrall Posted Oct 15, 2008
Tim,

Volume, number of sales, is down, if you don't count Getty Premium Access sales, which doesn't count for anything because it is a joke. My actual sales dollars, per sale, are as high as they have ever been, no complaints there, except for Premium Access. I continue to produce, if anything, I am producing more. Clearly some of my simple images are no longer selling at all because of microstock competition. These images used to help balance out some of the complex work that didn't always pay enough to justify the labor / expense involved. Now that balance is gone. It is more difficult now to justify investing in stock production, the gamble factor has been raised, raised a lot.

Don

Post Comment