[STOCKPHOTO] Per Image Income
Trev...@aol.com
In a message dated 22/6/02 01:59:52, wi...@photo.uk.com writes:
<< I have seen figures banded around that US$4 per image per year is
doing well. What type of images is this for? I've arrived at an
expected production cost of UK£100 per accepted catalogue image and
need to achieve UK£18.75 per quarter or £75 per year to even begin to
think that the cash flow of the project could stand it.
Can anyone enlighten me as to the validity of those figures for the
sort of imagery I am planning? >>
Dear Will
A lot of the confusion is down to how you count your submissions and how you
count your turnover.
Suppose you shoot several rolls using the same model and location on the same
day. Do you call that one picture? If an agent takes 20 variations from that
session do you call it 20 images or is it still basically one?
Also do you count your money before the agent takes their 50% or after?
Bob Croxford
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Courtesy of The STOCKPHOTO Network - http://www.stockphoto.net/
Posting Rules - http://www.stockphoto.net/Subscriptions.html#rules
STOCKPHOTO Archives - http://www.stockphoto.net/Archives.html
Please Help Support Us - http://www.amazon.com/paypage/P3662PPOZBRAZ1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Brian Yarvin
> the same day. Do you call that one picture? If an agent takes 20
> variations from that session do you call it 20 images or is it still
> basically one?
Bob and Fellow Listreaders:
Since I am the only one who (thusfar) has answered William's post.
I might as well state how I calculated those numbers.
Each agency I'm in offers a count of the number of images
accepted when the rejects are returned. That is the number of
pictures I use. I do NOT consider subject matter.
> Also do you count your money before the agent takes their 50% or
> after?
50%? Do you mean 50% + catalog fees plus the slice of the pie
that goes to subagents? In fact, most of my sales give me 25% or
less. To measure the performance of my business, I always use
the amount paid me.
None of this seems to be standard or standardized in any way...
Brian Yarvin
Stockphotos for agencies around the world from Edison, NJ
http://www.brianyarvin.com
Trev...@aol.com
In a message dated 24/6/02 13:54:27, br...@brianyarvin.com writes:
<< Since I am the only one who (thusfar) has answered William's post.
I might as well state how I calculated those numbers.
Each agency I'm in offers a count of the number of images
accepted when the rejects are returned. That is the number of
pictures I use. I do NOT consider subject matter.
> Also do you count your money before the agent takes their 50% or
> after?
50%? Do you mean 50% + catalog fees plus the slice of the pie
that goes to subagents? In fact, most of my sales give me 25% or
less. To measure the performance of my business, I always use
the amount paid me.
None of this seems to be standard or standardized in any way...
>>
Dear Brian
I used to count number of frames accepted. I now count picture sets which I
calculate as similars or in-camera dupes.
I also count only the money recieved. As you say it is not standardised. One
industry guru quotes the amount the agency gets which doubles or trebles the
real figure. As he has some input into stock surveys one has to wonder.
The best I've done on large numbers in an agency was £7/ $10 per image per
annum but that was long ago during the golden age. This average only existed
because of a few BIG sales and loads of little ones. Now it seems sales
reports have lots of little sales, no big ones and the average is more like
£2 - £3 per annum.
Photographers who insist and get catalogue or return deals with lots of
agencies do better of course.
Yours
Bob Croxford
Brian Yarvin
> which I calculate as similars or in-camera dupes.
Bob and Fellow Listreaders:
It is always interesting to see how many ways there are to
approach this business. This idea of "picture sets" makes lots of
sense in the current enviroment of catalog exclusives, similars, and
the various forms of agency and self promotions that are possible.
>
> I also count only the money recieved. As you say it is not
> standardised. One industry guru quotes the amount the agency gets
> which doubles or trebles the real figure. As he has some input into
> stock surveys one has to wonder.
Lucky for me, dividing by two is something I can handle. I have
noticed that some people are thrown by percentage calculations
though. Anybody who can handle the sorts of statistical projections
needed to gain detailed patterns from agency sales reports
probably should be in a different career...
Brian Yarvin
Stockphotos for agencies around the world from Edison, NJ
http://www.brianyarvin.com
pitamitz
do you know also the difference of Per Image Income between
travel/nature, people and still-life images?
Market (and catalogs) are 80% people and still-life images so I
imagine that there are a difference...
Cheers
Sergio
Brian Yarvin
> do you know also the difference of Per Image Income between
> travel/nature, people and still-life images?
> Market (and catalogs) are 80% people and still-life images so I
> imagine that there are a difference...
Sergio:
I do for my own images!
Under the current system of extreme editing, the difference is zero.
In the old paper catalog days, people images sold a bit better than
non-people images, but only about 25% better.
In the even older system of film images in the files, the difference
was huge.
However, this doesn't really tell the story at all.
The differences are shown more clearly when you consider the
"numbers game" that Bob Croxford has spoken of. In the days of
files, multiple agencies, and paper catalogs, I often was able to
place 300 images from a half day shoot. I assisted on shoots that
placed 1,000 images in a single agency in one day. The best I
was able to do in travel was about 300 images from a two week
trip. (we're talking classic blue sky styles in the 1980's)
These days; I am noticing several other problems. First, people
images just aren't as universal as they were five or ten years ago. I
can no longer place American looking images in Japan and today,
making things more European looking is more than just switching
neckties and eyeglasses.
Next, fewer and fewer photographers are willing to do the high-
budget loss leaders that turned editor's heads while far more
people are turning out relatively cheap travel and still life shots. For
me, this means that I really can't participate in many agencies that
I'd like to, because the only images they'll accept from me are
one's that are certain to loose money, even if they sell well.
Lastly, there's the numbers game from another angle; every model
shoot I did in 1994 both put images in the files and landed at least
one photo in a paper catalog. In 2001, 1/2 the model shoots place
zero images in agencies and only one out of ten put an image in a
paper catalog.
I find that talking most agencies is of little help in these matters.
They are desperate for those high-ticket shoots and sincerely
seem to not understand why we photographers are unwilling to
bankrupt ourselves so they can have them.
Go figure...
Brian Yarvin
Stockphotos for agencies around the world from Edison, NJ
http://www.brianyarvin.com