Cost per image

Some time ago I came across this topic reading an interview, and I was caught by the fact that the photographer mentioned his cost per image being around X dollars. That's the cost per each image he produces for microstock. Wow, I told to myself (the number was high in my opinion). He should have a return per image bigger than X, to justify those expenses.

That have lead me to think about it and now the calculation of CPI (cost per image) is part of my analysis of stock business together with the more famous RPI.

In fact if my cost per image is, say 5, and I earn 7 per image, you see that the real net earning per image is 2. So the whole RPI should be measured against the costs to came to a sort of Net Return Per Image.

In the past, stock photos were mostly the leftover from assignments. So costs weren't a factor, basically. Now is completely another way. We produce images for stock. We basically do self-assignments and we pay upfront the costs of producing these images.

Costs are probably rising for everybody, as microstock require more and more quality and attention to details, props and so on. Occasionally models or locations. The best way to cut costs is to be creative.

In the future I will maybe report some numbers about my costs, NRPI and results of my efforts toward cutting costs and being anyway profitable and successful enough to continue in my stock photography adventure.

Microstock or not to microstock?

This year something new happened in my photographic professional life: I started to produce stock images to be licensed as RM through a couple of specialized libraries. I planned a shift of production to more RM and less micro. I think that involuntary, I took a step that many photographers will follow in the next years.

Why? Because micro alone will not be sustainable for many of us. Plus, the possibility that one day we will be forced and choose to go exclusive with one agency only, could cause to many photographers to end their dreams of a career in stock photography.

Diversification is the key word. To produce images that can be targeted to different kind of markets and clients. I intend to remain in the stock playground. No assignments for me, because I love too much the freedom that stock allows me.

So that's why less of my production will go into microstock and more to traditional licensing, especially Royalty managed or protected.

So, to answer the title of this post question: yes, I will license my images in microstock again and I suppose for a longtime. But what is now the main source of income for me, in the next couple of years should became just one of the two or three sources of my earnings from stock.

The image, Dollars, can be licensed at dreamstime.

RPI decline, now what?

The decline in Return per image that most photographers experienced in the last year is due obviously to the fact that new images are flooding the market, but without a comparable growth of customers.

There is something about RPI that must be underlined. More images you have in your portfolio more chances that your RPI may go down. Why that?
Because this measurement divide earnings by total images. So, if your portfolio of images grow substantially, also sales/earnings must grow substantially to maintain the same RPI.

Since sales in my case have sometimes even grown, but earnings declined, this is another proof of a small problem: the subscription plans.
It seems that the earnings are down respect the sales, because now entered this new variable. If before images sold from 0.50 to 5 dollars (I take as example Dreamstime), now with images often selling for 0.35, the increase in number of sales seems not to compensate enough for the lesser earnings per image.

So, if subscription plans plus the growth of competition among photographers are the cause of RPI decline, what is the solution? To change our goals/expectations and redefine our strategies.

Since subscription plans aren't going away, something to consider is also other venues where to license your images as RM (or RF) with an higher RPI (the kind of Alamy, for example, comes to mind, RPI there is usually higher than any micro).

Also, submitting less images much more focused on some subject in which to specialize is another thing I'm personally considering and worth thinking about.
Any other ideas out there, on how to deal with the RPI decline?

The image, Photographers, can be licensed as usual at Dreamstime.

RPI considerations

This time I want to write about the famous RPI, return per image, measure. As you probably know, in stock photography this is one key indicator of success.

My RPI/month in microstock (all the agencies together, not just Dreamstime)is at level of 1,2 dollar per image. Average, according to the accepted standards. From 3 up is considered high. A level of 5 is already great. Beyond 5, unbelievable :-)

Since I started to evaluate more closely the RPI, I found out that my 2008 RPI/year (that is the RPI measured yearly, not monthly) is around 2,5. Not so bad.
Fotolia reached a 3,4 that is very good indeed. What is the difference between monthly or yearly RPI? I think the year RPI put all in perspective and sum up the work you have made during a larger span of time. It averages all down to a better picture.

I favor this kind of measurement when evaluating my RPI and other sales related statistics. The results of one year bring more precise numbers and level the fluctuations of good/bad months.

I believe that Microstock can still give a decent RPI, if you are able to provide a good quantity+quality of images regularly, at a fast pace. Today is probably harder for the newcomers than for established microstockers, but who want to make it seriously must always keep a close look at RPI to see if he/she is doing well.

My image,  microstock photography, is licensed through Dreamstime.

Statistics

I want to introduce a small basic historical statistic of my microstock activity, dedicated to the fans of numbers. (which I'm not too much, I confess)

I started out in Dreamstime with 755 uploads in 2006, and monthly revenues for that year were under the 100 dollars line. In 2007 I uploaded 700 new images (for a total portfolio of 1455) and my monthly earnings was substantially up, At around 200% more.

2008 was the boom year, with 1689 new uploaded images. The average revenue per month jumped of another 100%. Not a good result in relative terms, but in absolute, doubling my previous year's earnings, was good.

This year, after nine months, my uploads are slowing down, with only around 450 new images, but thanks to the portfolio size, the monthly average revenues are again growing another 50%.

What that say me? Apparently, that the portfolio size count in some good percentage for the overall revenues.
But if you look closely, you will know that DT (and other agencies as well) has changed the prices and elevated the percentage to contributors, during these years. So, is something more complex than just increasing portfolio size.

I would say that also if portfolio size count (let's say a 30-40 percent?), the most important factor is the regular continued submission of good new images if you want to make it seriously, otherwise you will disappear from the radars.

My RPI is not that great, I must confess, and that's why I have substantially reduced my production and submission of images this year. I believe that in the near future my microstock submissions will be lowered and each one closely evaluated. The aim should be to have less images, better focused on originality.

This will be the third phase of my development as a stock photographer. After the learning of the stock photography world, after having established a position in the market (if we can call it this way! :-), now is time for more business efficiency.

The image, numbers, is licensed at Dreamstime.

Buying microstock images

The first thing to know when buying microstock images, is that a large group of photographers/illustrators are submitting the same images to all the agencies.

So, often you may find the same image(s) in all the main microstock agencies. This lead to a obvious consideration: if the images are not exclusive, better go with the agency that offer the best subscription plan or single image price.

That said, you must probably choose an agency where to commit and became familiar with their stock archive, system of selection, lightboxes, searching features, and so on.

Some agencies have different terms for what is allowed under the standard Royalty free license, so you must also became familiar with the various differences or specific term of each agency, before decide what works best for you.

Probably in iStock you will find the highest number of exclusives images. In Shutterstock exclusivity doesn't exist. So images here are available almost surely in every other agency. Thus, prices come into consideration as said above.

Recapitulating: price dictate surely the choice, but don't forget the advantage of having images that are 'exclusive only' on a specific agency. If you buy a lot of images, subscription plans are the more convenient way top go, if you are an occasional buyer, you should search for the best 'per download' prices.

My photo at the top, stock photographers, is available at Dreamstime.

A basic review of the top four microstock agencies, from buyer's perspective

iSTOCK
iStockPhoto, now owned by Getty images, is the king of microstock realm. They were the creator of the microstock concept and still are a step ahead of the competition.
They have very high standard and surely the toughest review process, so you can be pretty sure to find excellent standard images here.

A lot of photographers are exclusives, guaranteeing to iStock a great amount of unique and very creative images. Notice that you will pay a premium for the iStock 'brand'. Especially for exclusive images, I consider this worth the extra money.

www.istock.com


SHUTTERSTOCK
Shutterstock, is a subscription only agency, where you must buy a subscription and have a set number of images to download in one week, month or year. Is obviously an agency for professionals and large design agencies, not the occasional microstock buyer.

In the last two years they have offered 'on demand' images, the possibility to buy pictures without committing to an heavy investment in a subscription plan. Then recently bought Bigstock photo for that same reason, to enter in the non-subscription share of the market.

www.shutterstock.com


FOTOLIA
Is very popular with european designers and clients, being located in Europe and having addressed since beginning the Germany and France markets. Later they expanded, to become a global successful microstock agency, today one of the top ones.

From this year, you can find video clips at affordable prices as well.

www.fotolia.com


DREAMSTIME

Dreamstime is a favorite of mine, I must confess (it is pretty clear from this my blog, anyway... .-)
I think that since beginning they were (and are) the best as for contributor fairness and this brought many contributors to became exclusive here.

They have quality images, all the features, good advanced search and every month there is a bunch of highly selected 'exclusive only' images available, from the monthly themed assignment.

www.dreamstime.com

Keep always your eyes open because there are continue changes (price structures, mergers, buyouts and so on) in all of these agencies, as the microstock market consolidate e mature.