In “Tips on Adding Microstock as a Revenue Stream,” Kelly Thompson said: “Today, some artists are finding they can make a good living exclusively selling microstock. iStockphoto has many contributors making anywhere from $40,000 to $500,000 a year.”
For most of the year, we have been tracking the number of downloads for 117 of the 150 most productive iStock contributors. (We have been unable to identify the other 33 in the top 150.) Total downloads of the 117 during the last seven months represent about 17% for all iStock contributor downloads.
Average downloads per month have declined slightly for 65 of these 117 contributors since March. Another 47 may have also seen a slight decline. (It is impossible to be more precise. In June, iStock changed its method of reporting downloads from exact numbers to ranges. For those with more than 100,000 career downloads, it is only possible to determine that the actual number is somewhere in the range of 10,000 images. For those with less than 100,000 total downloads, the numbers are within a 1,000 image range. To make our estimates, we considered both the possible low and high number of downloads.) Only 5 out of the top 117 have definitely seen an average growth in sales in the last seven months.
This table, which omits photographer names as irrelevant to this discussion, lists the number of units downloaded for each photographer in March and the low and high monthly averages for the seven months ending with September. From these figures, a range of annual income is extrapolated in the last two columns. (These figures are based on iStockcharts data, an average of $6.50 price per download and non-exclusive contributor royalty percentages.)
Note that the total number of downloads in March is just slightly below the total maximum possible downloads for these contributors. We know that many have just recently passed the minimum number; thus, the actual number of downloads for this group is probably closer to the 368,873 average of the minimum and maximum than it is to the maximum number.
On the other hand, while prices remain static, gross revenue for the industry appears to be increasing. It is believed that iStock’s gross 2008 revenue was around $160 million and they have announced that they are on track to gross over $200 million in sales this year. Since the price per download has not changed, this suggests that there is still growth in the number of units licensed. However, the $6.50 average price per download is for still photo sales only. The prices for vectors, illustrations, video, audio and the premium Vetta collection are all higher. Increased sales of these items could explain an overall increase in gross revenue even if the number of units licensed is flat or declining.
Among other reasons for the declines these 117 iStock photographers are experiencing could be:
- The economy, though according to a recently published Graphic Design USA survey, designers (the high-end microstock customers) are using microstock more and more in these challenging times to keep their costs down.
- New iStock photographers taking share from those who are more experienced.
- Other competitors taking market share from iStock.
- Lack of new customers.
- Product becoming too expensive for some of the old customers, despite the fact that it still seems cheap to producers.
It is important to recognize that iStock has more than 80,000 contributors. These 117 are among the ones with the most total downloads, but they are only a very small fraction of total suppliers. Some of the ones at the bottom of this list may have sold more images in the past, but for one reason or another have stopped adding to the collection. All have had at least 63,000 total downloads in their iStock careers. There may be a few others with fewer total downloads, but who are aggressively adding new work and will have earnings higher than some on this list.
Many of Thompson’s points are good advice. And yes, a few people earn significant money from microstock—but be realistic as to your earning potential. Also keep in mind that these earning figures do not take into account any productions costs. For some of the top earners, production costs are significant. For most photographers it may be better to think of microstock as supplemental income rather than a sole source of revenue. Even then the photographer may find it necessary to invest more energy and financial resources than initially anticipated in order to realize a reasonable return.