Today’s short rant before heading to the airport in Spokane and home… Microstock. It has been a contentious part of the ‘professional’ photography world for quite some time. Today’s post “iStockphotos “Unsustainable†Business Model: From Crowd-Sourcing To Crowd-Shafting?” is a wonderful report of what is going on inside that world of micro payments for photography. And it is not all good… well, actually none of it is good. Never was.
Before beginning, I want to say that I think there are some damn fine photographers working in the microstock world. I think they have misled themselves into thinking it was some super new ‘paradigm’ and would be something that they could grow and be successful at. Sorry. Not happening. Ever.
It was always a pile of dung with a pretty blanket over it. Lipstick on a pig, so to speak. Unsustainable is the word that comes to mind.
I am not going to quote too much from the article there, as I think you should go there, read the whole thing, bookmark it and remember what it said every time you are thinking about making an image for use for a dollar… OK?
Let’s examine some basic truths:
A true stock agency cares about and works with their contributors to make sure that their work stays in demand. A true stock agency has strong commitments to their contributors, bonds of trust that can be too easily broken. And a true stock agency cares about their clients, making sure images are not sold to competing companies and causing embarrassment or more.
A true Stock Agency has scruples and VALUES the work they sell. They understand what a photograph made in a tiny sliver of time is actually worth. They KNOW that an image has an intrinsic value that must be defined and held in esteem. It is the lifeblood of their company, their contributors lives, the very essence of what it means to be profitable.
Microstock? Eh… not so much. Not at all, actually.
Let’s say we have two photographers who shoot Trout Fishing. Photographer A has been a contributor to RealStockAgency for a couple of years and his sales are booming. He is the go-to guy for Trout Fishing images requested by their customers.
Along comes Trout Fishing Photographer B who shoots images of Trout Fishing in the same vein as Photographer A. Since there isn’t really that big of a call for Trout fishing images in a given year, the agency would be cutting the income of Photographer A by somewhere in the 50% range by bringing on Photographer B.
So they usually didn’t. If Photographer B had a whole new fresh idea on how to shoot Trout (two sidelights slightly behind and a beauty dish in front, for instance) then it may be another style and that would be fine. Photographer A would keep their income, and Photographer B would sell images to HipHop Trout Fishing magazines.
All’s cool.
Microstock just doesn’t give a crap. And they never would under their model.
A real stock agency understands the metrics of the market and their contributors, so selling the images for the photographers was a sum gain for both. The more images the agency sold for Photographer A, the more Photographer A was able to make images to sell.
Microstock has no such commitment to their contributors… they make money on the sale… the more sales, the more they make. Period. You got trout fishing pics? Great – send them in. Millions of them… who gives a damn… storage is cheap.
People on white seamless… gazillions. Bad product shots… bring them on.
The model was never intended to help the photographer, the model was in place to sell volume quantities of a cheap item. The more cheap items to pick from, the more the potential sales. The ‘vendors’ are actually the people who send in images looking for fame and a photo credit for the cover of Time. They are not the problem, really. They were sold a bill of goods and … well, more in a minute on that.
That they call themselves an agency is not directed toward the photographers, it is directed toward the buyers. Buy as much as you want as cheaply as we can get it to you… and we make a lot of money because our vendors demand so very little.
I used to hear it described as win/win… bullshit. Venture capitalists rarely go into something for a win/win. They go in to make money. (And I have no problem with that, so don’t be thinking I am some kind of anti-capitalist.)
In the stock photo business they defined a need (“wouldn’t it be cool if we could have something we can’t afford… like a ‘professional’ image for our brochure”) and found a long list of people willing to provide that work (“Dude, you’re kidding me! Someone will use my photo on the cover of a brochure and I get $3!!!! Wow… I’m a pro!”). They were told it was a win/win.
It was pure bullshit because at some point the lipstick comes off the pig.
Unsustainable. I said that nearly 10 years ago. I have been saying that to everyone I know (my workshoppers can attest to my mini-rant against devaluing the work they do and selling it for a couple of bucks).
Because there is a tipping point where the vendors start to believe they matter. To the agency. To the world of photography. To anyone.
And, unfortunately they don’t. They are only needed to keep sending images… and if one should fall, another will step in to take her place and keep the fuel coming to drive the profits higher. Again, I don’t have any problem with profits, but how many of you think the heads of these so-called ‘agencies’ are making $60K per year? Let’s see the hands… …. … Hmmm. Me neither.
iStock to contributors, 01/04/2008:
“That our revenue and payouts have eclipsed those of many traditional stock photography companies confirms that microstock is a viable and profitable business model for contributors and clients.â€
iStock to contributors, 08/09/2010:
“Since roughly 2005 we’ve been aware of a basic problem with how our business works. As the company grows, the overall percentage we pay out to contributing artists increases. As a business model, it’s simply unsustainable.â€
So let’s get this right. In 2004 they showed that it was a viable and profitable business model. For their clients and contributors.
Really? Really really?
I guess it all depends on what you call contributors. And how you define success. How many photographers who were ‘contributing’ to the microstock agencies were ‘profitable’ and ‘viable’ as a business selling their images that way?
Clients… hell yeah. And they made even more by MARKING THE IMAGES UP, as everyone knows that an image in a brochure is worth more than $2… and markup is fair business. So clients made out like a bandit. Sort of. The work wasn’t all that good in many cases. But it was cheap.
Now that’s a great business model. “It ain’t all that good, but it is cheap.”
Yeah. Sign me up for that.
But, Whoa… in 2005 they discovered there was a problem? Only a year later? I repeat… ONLY A YEAR LATER! Sort of makes one wonder if:
A. They lied in 2004
B. They were too stupid to know what was going on in 2004
C. Their ‘research’ was totally flawed and they couldn’t see a sustainable business model if it kicked them in the face
Take your pick. Kinda sucks every way, doesn’t it.
Wonder why they didn’t start informing the people who were contributing to the ‘agency’ that there were storm clouds on the horizon? (Daily sales and huge profits had nothing to do with the decision to not say anything, I am sure of that… ….)
So now it comes out that selling images for $20 and giving the photographer $3 is not sustainable. For who?
Dudes and dudettes, I would LOVE to make an 85% markup on anything I sell. Wouldn’t you?
So what is unsustainable?
Paying contributors a decent percentage is ‘unsustainable’?
Just how much profit does a company who does everything by electronic transfer need to make? How many huge salaries are we talking about here?
“Huge Salary” Not a term Microstockers are used to. Sorry.
I said I would get to something earlier… and that is the sorryass state of education in this and many other countries. Economics is not that hard. Understanding markets and capitalization and assets and depreciation and value is not that friggin’ hard. So why do we end up with so many people happy to sell something at 1/2% of what others are getting for similar goods?
A simple understanding of the value of the work, how it is distributed and used, how the sales margins are considered and revenues achieved and royalties paid out.
It’s not that hard.
Alas, we come to this place. Where the blatantly obvious is revealed to those who were deceived… and anger replaces embarrassment, and blame is elevated to the high arts.
Sorry, microstockers. The blame is placed on those who look back from the mirror. The damage caused by the lowering of fair market values may take decades to recover, if they do at all. And was it worth it?
I guess that is not for me to decide… but then I never participated in the travesty that is microstock.
I always thought it was… ‘unsustainable’.
To follow along on Twitter, click here. See my Lighting Workshops at Learn to Light and farewell to all those who are pissed off that I am calling it as I see it.
Sad story.
While we’re on the topic of Getty, here’s another blog post from two days ago that highlights their business model and why they don’t really care about the photographer (to your point above): http://blog.melchersystem.com/2010/09/12/under-the-carpet/
Started reading the book cornered (http://www.amazon.com/Cornered-Monopoly-Capitalism-Economics-Destruction/dp/0470186380) after having it recommended to me. Insightful regarding the recent trends in Corp America and the lack of choice despite appearance to the contrary. Go in any major store and you’re overwhelmed with brands (beer, dog food, eyewear etc.). But in most cases between 50-90% of these brands are all owned by a single entity. Kind of like would you rather deal with the red iStock or the blue iStock. Or if you come over hear, we have the green iStock.
Was just chatting two days ago whether there will be a trend towards more local and smaller as folks get fed up with these shenanigans. Looks like the food movement is leading the way on that front.
This post and the article you referenced were very interesting. I never participated in microstock as a photographer so a lot of that part of the industry I was fuzzy on. The points you made, however, really make sense. I have enough going on in personal consumer photography that even going this route was frightening to me even back when everyone thought it was “cool.” Thanks for the informative post.
I completely agree. Too many people just don’t understand basic economics, and that (combined with their need to have their ego stroked by having their work used) leads to hundreds and thousands of people being fine with making peanuts and letting the microstock companies screw them into the ground.
There is an angle missing here, albeit not one that a photographer wants to hear. I use microstock images for my design-for-print clients, and hell, suddenly my clients’ work has improved. Why? Because SMEs are rarely keen on stumping up £100 for a stock image for the cover of their newsletter, or to illustrate an article – let alone employ a freelance photographer.
They are, however, prepared to pay a few £ for a workmanlike image (and let’s be honest there are some better than workmanlike images under microstock), and throw me a few £ for spending some to time to sift through the rubbish. So, I mark up. But I mark up because I’m using time to research the images.
To reiterate – these people were *not* buying photography in any way, shape or form before microstock, instead they relied on using poor self-taken photography, or even on image theft.
Let us take our heads down from the clouds for a moment: for every solid gold client prepared to pay for photography there are literally tens or hundreds more that aren’t. Microstock, at least, raises their game by a small fraction.
From my end of the tube, the damage had already been done in the 80s, with the advent of DTP. We cannot return to the days of clients paying proper and correct sums for photography, design, and illustration – the clients just won’t pay for it, and will not be re-educated to that.
We can try to bend them back to the righteous ways of the past, how many will listen? Sadly, the microstock agencies are merely responding to clients voting with their chequebooks.
I know what you are saying. I do.
And I don’t think you are wrong.
I always got $250 per MicroStock Image I used in Design projects.
So I made out pretty well… but that is something that is a reality.
But just like many things, I do not think that there is some sort of ‘right’ to having access to high quality images. It may exist at this point as a ‘groupthink’ – but it doesn’t exist as a right.
In the US we are feeling the crunch of what happens when home ownership became a ‘right’ available to everyone – even if they couldn’t afford it. Bottom line… high quality images are not a right. Making images cheaply available is not a right or a condition of being a photographer.
Bu they are a part of our system at this point.
I don’t think it will go away either… I think it will simply devolve into a continuing Balkanization of design and marketing. Highest quality and crap – no middle ground.
“HipHop Trout Fishing magazines” – Great mental image. I would love to know what kind of articles would be in said magazine. Great post Don.
I can’t lie, I was tempted by the promise of micro stock. I quickly realized that I would never be able to get any kind of return on investment for any of the images I submitted. I haven’t been back to the site in two years.
JB
“Lures That Make Pike Your Bitch”
“Ludacris Explains the Perfect Cast”
“Playing FiftyCent Makes Some Trout Go Crazy”
“Kanye West… naw… Kanye West sucks too much to be into Trout…
Right on. As long as there are people out there willing to sell their work (and I hate to call some of it “work”) for dirt cheap just to get a photo credit or a magazine cover, we’ll have this problem. I have turned down plenty of jobs when a potential client refuses to pay a decent wage for my work. And I’ve had my share of my “high prices” scare potential clients off. Oh well. I might not be making much money, but I’n not giving the photos away, either.
The problem, in my view, is that even with the very low payouts of microstock there will always be some one else willing to fill the void. And if that person happens to live in a country where a few dollars goes a lot further than it does in the US or Europe, they’re going to keep doing it. It’s just a new form of outsourcing to places with lower labor costs. From that perspective is our work still worth as much as we think it is? I hate to say it, but I do think that it is sustainable, but not for those of us in North America and Europe.
There’s also the problem of cameras getting really good. It used to be that to get that trout fishing image you had to actually plan out a shoot. Scout the location, pick the right time of day, find the model, style the wardrobe, and then patiently wait for the right moment. But now some retired doctor on vacation is gonna snap that same picture with his 8MP cell phone. So which is more valuable to the photographer? To the buyer? Sure the cell phone picture won’t be as good, but to the buyer it will be so much cheaper that the trade off is worth it; ie, it will be “good enough”. And thus continues the decline in the value and quality of photography…sad.
Well, you know… that is true.
And I am not against people in third world countries making money… I am not.
But that is not to deny that the industry has been devastated as well as the view of the photographers to their own worth. Accepting $3 for an image used by commercial enterprises is simply…. …. …. stupid.
If Microstock agencies think their problem is the miserable % they give to contributors then I will be laughing so hard that you will be hearing me even in your neck of the woods…
Maybe this will open the eyes of the microstock contributors to see that thinking the coca cola way of mass production and pricing can´t be really applied at all to photography… Oh and that they have been fooled for years receiving only cents in exchange.
Eduardo… they are saying that since they are making more money, their dollar amount of payouts is getting larger and that ‘penalizes’ them… which is pure bullshit since the percentages stay the same.
“…and Photographer B would sell images to HipHop Trout Fishing magazines…”
Thank you for the VERY hearty laugh out loud!
Heh.
They should’ve shown that much outrage for the original compensation plan, before they started making even fewer pennies.
Even I figured out when I first started with photography that microstock would be a dumb way to go. I mean, to just make a few bucks on each shot given the amount of time, energy, and money that I’ve spent to create images? Oh please. Plus I didn’t want that stigma (or stain) on me or my reputation. At all.
I’ll echo many of the the thoughts above. I too have turned down jobs from people who wanted services for cheap or next to nothing, or want to negotiate unreasonably. Guess what? The sky hasn’t fallen, and the people that I have done work for truly enjoy what I create and pass on the positive referrals. And precisely because I don’t run around catering to 1000 people at once for $5 each, I can show my clients the time and attention that they deserve. The people who pay the least are the ones who end up demanding the most and will never send you a referral that will pay any more than the nothing they paid. I’ve seen that so many times in other businesses, and it’s just not worth it.
It is really amazing when you make a point in your life and work and refuse to cross it.
It doesn’t take much research to see what Getty’s sole objective is, contributors are better off joining other sites and spreading their portfolios far and wide, who wants to put all their eggs in one basket? Not me!
http://www.shutterstock.com
http://www.fotolia.com
http://www.Mediastock.ca
Lets spread the word that Getty’s attempt at market domination while screwing the people who made their site a success will go down in flaming history
So right Don. High quality images are not a right. It’s just like anything else in life. Otherwise we’d all be driving to shoots in Ferrari’s and Bentley’s, wearing Armani and Zegna clothes while working with our Hasselblad cameras…….
Great article. Nit: in the $3 vs. $20 example, the gross margin is indeed 85%, but the markup is actually 567%.
This is a good example of how removing barriers to entry can actually result in a disservice to the market by lowering the standard of quality and making it harder for legitimate producers to make a decent living. Unfortunately there’s no such thing as a license to charge others for photography, but perhaps there ought to be.
Best regards,
Michael
hi
Like u say the ccontributors dug the grave, n then it was too late to get out
better late then never,
interestingly there has been a whole bunch of microstock agency’s opening up , it has become something that every MBA is out to make a fool out of the contributor, what better then to not pay the contributor.
It sounds like you’ve hated the idea of inexpensive stock photos forever, but please quote the iStock CEO correctly. With all due respect, he never said microstock is unsustainable. He said the royalty structure is unsustainable. Totally different. If getty in the 80s said they needed to lower your royalty rate to stay profitable, would you then assume the entire business of stock photography was in the toilet? I’m sorry but you need to be intellectually honest and quote articles correctly, especially when you have a pent-up ax to grind.
Intellectual Honesty… oh goody, let’s get started shall we.
I quoted him verbatim. I totally get that he is saying that the payment structure is unsustainable.
I said:
“So now it comes out that selling images for $20 and giving the photographer $3 is not sustainable. For who?
Dudes and dudettes, I would LOVE to make an 85% markup on anything I sell. Wouldn’t you?
So what is unsustainable?
Paying contributors a decent percentage is ‘unsustainable’?
Just how much profit does a company who does everything by electronic transfer need to make? How many huge salaries are we talking about here? “
Of course to be honest about it, wouldn’t we have to define the ‘business’ of stock photography from the photographer’s side as the commission? I mean, really, what else is there. If the commission structure is unsustainable, then that bodes some gloom for the industry… as lowering the commission to even lower percentages means less ‘take home’ for the individual photographer, while the company has stated their sales are going UP.
Hmmm… intellectually honestly – I don’t get it.
Well, I do actually. They are not making per image the amount needed to sustain the business with an equitable stake for their contributors. There are so many more contributors sending in images and volume is – according to Getty – way up. So the company makes more, but has to pay its vendors less. And less.
“If getty in the 80s said they needed to lower your royalty rate to stay profitable, would you then assume the entire business of stock photography was in the toilet? ”
Well that is called a hypothetical… and really, I am not sure what to do with that.
If you are asking if Getty in the 80’s ever tried to lower their rates then no. Getty wasn’t around in the 80’s. AdStock, Sharpshooters, Westlight, Weststock, Tony Stone, and a few dozen others were. And there were some grumblings then on commissions, but most stayed pretty comfortably around 50%. As far as I know… I didn’t and don’t shoot much stock. When I did, AdStock was my stock agency. Now a few of my images were picked up by some textbook folks and I received the lowest rate there was… $125 per image for 25 images. In 1995. I was fine with it. (We’ll get back to this in a moment, there is a point.)
Did I ever think traditional stock was sustainable? Well, actually, in 1986 I wrote a few articles going against the grain of the “Holy Stock Empire” model that was being perpetrated on photographers. “Screw assignment work, shoot stock. It is your retirement.”
Really… how’d that work out? Yeah, just like I thought it would way back in the 80’s.
Markets. Markets are a force, and the amount of participation will always change the market one way or another. When finding a perfect stock shot of a river, with the tasty backlight and color was a challenge, the price of the item was high. When more and more participants enter, the price of the item becomes less valuable. Thus when all the ‘stock gurus’ were hyping to other photographers to get in the game and shoot stock, I knew that at some point ‘saturation’ would enter the market. Does anyone remember David Stoeklein? One of the most prolific shooters I have ever known. Shot only stock. Now he sells books and posters. The call for yet another boy and girl holding hands on the beach has been silenced.
But back to my article. I am unable to break the commission structure of the business from the – uh – business. They are one and the same. If the business cannot continue with a commission structure that is as low as 15%, then tell me how that is really a sustainable model for the vendor (photographer)?
And, honestly, intellectually honestly, your choice of words was careful and crafted… and simply not intellectually honest when you state “…hated the idea of inexpensive stock photos forever…”.
Inexpensive? That is the word you choose? Is that because you cannot actually state the reality of what you are saying so you have to couch what is clearly way beyond the term ‘inexpensive’?
The lowest rates that my little stock agency would take was $250 for textbook licensing – in 1995 – is replaced by someone selling it for $5 in 2007. You choose inexpensive? From $250 to $7 is not inexpensive… it is laughably insane. In what markets other than stock photography have we seen such a rapid decline for the value of the property? You could have said micro-payments, or ittybittytinystupid rates… but you know that a $7 image to be used in a textbook where they had been happy to pay $250 was less than competition, less than inexpensive.
Intellectually honestly now, do you consider a discount of 99% inexpensive? Is that what you would say about a car that was $20,000 and just had a price drop to $200? “Oh look, that car is so much more ‘inexpensive’ now? Or would the terms ‘dirt cheap’ and ‘a steal’ come to mind.
“…would you then assume the entire business of stock photography was in the toilet?…”
Well, if they are charging $30 for the cover of a major news magazine and paying the photographer 15%, then yeah, I guess I am. Especially when they are stating that the 15% is too much for the photographer.
You see, I am on the PHOTOGRAPHERS side. I want the PHOTOGRAPHER to do well. I don’t give a flying crap about anyone else but the PHOTOGRAPHER. And before you think this is some sort of selfish thing on my part, I have NO images currently in stock. My agency was put out of business by the Royalty Free crowd a long time ago. And I have not entered the stock market again.
So, intellectually honestly, I do care a great deal about the sustainability of PHOTOGRAPHERS to make a living at their craft. I don’t have an ‘ax to grind’ about anything other than when PHOTOGRAPHERS get screwed over… and it hurts even more when they do it to themselves.
So, honestly, who’s side are you on? You think lowering the percentages are good? You think that photographers should simply STFU and be happy with $5 for a photograph that will be used to sell million dollar condo’s? You think that the people at Corbis are underpaid and they need more money to offset the bitter fact that they are actually MAKING more money than they ever have?
And what is really really sad, are the microstockers who call people who are fighting FOR THEM names like ‘trads’ and belittle the people who know that a travesty is happening to them and the market and their ability to make a living. They think that people like me ‘don’t get it, man… it’s like the new paradigm, man… it’s like, whoa, and it’s all like 2pointOH, man.”
Bullshit. It is business – at least on the side of Corbis it is. They tell you how cool it is to get credit and how participating is oh so web2.0 and how the paradigm has shifted… for YOU. Not for them. They are a bigass business making a hell of a lot of money… and now they cry unsustainability and want to lower the rates even further. Wonder if they would have this problem if they had been competitive at say 80% of market… or 75% of market. Nope, they went in at 1/2% of the current market rate and now are crying about it.
So my point is and has always been that I love photography and photographers. I want them to succeed. I work hard at it in my extra time… unless you think I make a ton-o-cash from this site, you will understand how much I care.
So I come down on the side of photographers… even though some are too blinded by the schtick to see it. I care about them.
Who’s side are you on… and who do you care about?
This is why you are the man. It is sad that so few people in our industry actually take up for our industry. I tried micro stock for two seconds. I sold a few images. Then it hit me when I received an email from someone who had bought one of my images wanting some similar images (of my cat actually). I emailed him and told him I’d work up a quote and deliver exactly what he wanted. He emailed back and said he’d just wait for me to upload it to my micro stock account……I’m not an idiot and the truth just slapped me in the face. I promptly closed those micro stock accounts.
I’ll tell you what else is a learning experience. The first time you get a sizable check for. The work you produced. Obviously the money is nice, but the reality is the validation I feel as an artist is tremendous. Example, work all week shooting micro stock (which I did) I earned about $5.00 that week. Versus I shoot one annual report, 6 portraits, in one day for a nonprofit. I deliver the finished images the following day and pick up my check for $2,000. Uh, hello great feeling. I am valued, my work is valued, and I can support my family. I think folks have to go through being somewhat successful to understand how bad micro stock really is. I’m sorry my $5 check versus my $2,000 check is a no brainer!
Thanks John.
I do wonder why some shooters think I am not on their side. That is where my allegiance will always be. And whether I think it hurts the industry as a whole, it hurts the individual photographer who is participating in this less-than-bargain-basement-throwaway-crap-at-prices-that-are-unsustainable – for the agency and the photographer.
If anyone thinks that Corbis who is making a ton of money is hurting, think of the photographers who are getting even less for their submissions, even as they buy newer and more expensive tools.
Yes, John… I think of myself as wearing the white hat (even though mine is black and has Harley Davidson on it) and standing FOR the PHOTOGRAPHERS. To tell a photographer that 20% is too much, and they will have to get by with even less is simply humiliating, debilitating and bullshit.
@Steve I am really surprised that you still defend Istock… for you is a matter of cheap photos regardless if the contributor is getting screwed with ridiculous low % fees??? that´s really repulsive.
@Don: It is pretty clear you are on the side of the shooter trying to wake them up with your article! If they can´t realize that they are getting shafted with the “deal” they receive from Istock and other microstock sites then they aren´t blinded… they are delusional.
Well, I didn’t know my post would elicit such a response. I respect your experience and position on this topic and really do believe that you have photographer’s best interest in mind. I primarily just think the blog title and the caption in the title are misleading. I think the titles imply that the microstock industry is admitting that the entire business model is flawed. I don’t think that is the case.
But putting that aside, and in full disclosure mode, I am exclusive with Getty and iStock at a 40% rate, so the 15% rate doesn’t apply to me (although I agree that is way low, but thankfully not as low as the common 7% that authors make). And honestly, those who are making 15% either just started or aren’t producing anything. Most fall in the 16-18% brackets. But either way, iStock’s been paying out 35 and 40 percent to a growing percentage of exlusive photographer’s, which I think is pretty good. So where 4 years ago there may have been 50 photogs making 40%, there are now 400+. and that is what they are trying to cap. An average payout of 25% from a few years ago could now be closer to 35% (I of course don’t know their exact averages). And I’m not neccessarily trying to justify their decision, just explaining it from their perspective.
As far as pricing goes, we could go on and on about the pros and cons of the low microstock pricing (mostly cons for many photographers and mostly pros for pretty much everyone else-designers and businesses), but that probably wouldn’t go anywhere. As a whole though, I assume you at least see it as good news that microstock prices in general have been on the rise as of late, with new higher end collections coming out. Just yesterday I had 2 $100 sales. By the way, was your low end royalty $125 or $250 in 1995? Unless I’m misreading, you said both above.
Another by the way, how do you see the advent of free affecting the industry going forward? Are you as adamant against photographers using flickr or creative commons licensing? Thanks, and I enjoy your blog, even when we differ 🙂
Steve,
No problems. Disagreement is how agreement is achieved.
And while you are making 40%, they now have moved the bar higher in order for you to continue making that revenue.
Full Disclosure from me as well. I worked very closely with two large stock agencies in a marketing capacity. I saw firsthand what RF did to the them, the photographers and most importantly the clients. Unfortunately, the slide downward was very quick in terms of quality provided and quality sought.
I think it overall demeaned the great work of the photographers themselves. One image from a specific disk was used 4 times in an early 2000 “Business 2.0” edition. All by different companies – and two that were competing against each other. That was a $2 image used in a media buy that was nearly $32,000.
And I don’t think that is right. Period.
“Another by the way, how do you see the advent of free affecting the industry going forward?”
I think it will eventually amount to a two-tier level of photographers. The ones who shoot for a lot of money and provide amazing images to those who are discriminating. And those who shoot for very little money and deliver amazing images to people who simply don’t care.
“Are you as adamant against photographers using flickr or creative commons licensing?”
Well… I’ll let you decide.
(And if there were no disagreement, there would be no progress…)
😉
I just re-read the russian blog post that you were referencing, and see that that blog is what you are quoting, not iStock’s COO. Reading through the whole post, I found several untruths and exaggerations. Some of it’s true, but some just isn’t.
I have never been a fan of Microstock. I’m sure early on, when only a handful of photographers jumped on it, it was profitable for them. Licensing a ton of images, even if for only a few dollars (or cents) put some money in their pockets. Of course, the problem with the model (for photographers) was that as more and more photographers started submitting (and lord knows there are tons of them out there with their shiny new digital cameras), the pool of images grew exponentially (in quantity, not quality). This meant that those who jumped on early and enjoyed those high volumes started to see those volumes decrease, along with their income. Ohhhh….big surprise!
Now, after reading the article linked above, having watched the whole Microstock thing from the sidelines for the past decade, seeing the obvious writing on the wall….what I’m wondering is;
Why are the Microstock contributors so upset? Is there really a big difference in getting 15% vs 30% (or even 50%) of basically nothing? Seriously, is it really that much bigger a slap in the face? They were getting pennies before. They’re still getting pennies, only fewer pennies.
Is it a big surprise that the company that was screwing them from the start is continuing to screw them? This is the same company (well a company owned by the same company) that tapped Flickr members to start uploading their images for the same pittance. I guess they realized they needed a pool of photographers that wouldn’t likely get too upset when their commission dropped from next to nothing to nothing-people who believe they can pay their bills with a tear sheet. My favorite part is that these flickr photographers have to provide their content, that they get paid pennies for, under an EXCLUSIVE agreement. I got a kick out of that.
For the poster above making the argument that microstock provided a way for image buyers to buy images that wouldn’t have otherwise been able to afford it…Let me get this straight. As a photographer, trying to earn a living, I am to be sympathetic and cut my prices to negligible so some designer who is probably getting a decent paycheck for the work they are doing can use a professional quality image on a brochure for a company who would have otherwise had some insider with a camera make a photo? The reasoning there is that Microstock created a market for sales that wouldn’t otherwise exist. The problem with that is it isn’t really a “market”, it’s a charity. For some reason, some photographers felt awfully generous, at least for a time.
Anyway, I don’t mean to slam those who jumped in the Microstock waters. Everyone needs to find their own way in this business. All I’m saying is it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that it’s just not working out.
“As a photographer, trying to earn a living, I am to be sympathetic and cut my prices to negligible so some designer who is probably getting a decent paycheck for the work they are doing can use a professional quality image on a brochure for a company who would have otherwise had some insider with a camera make a photo?”
Well… yeah.
Heh.
I think it is similar to a straw man argument. Photography was worth a value… and if you couldn’t afford that value, then you had to find other means. The Microstock business took an already thriving business that was charging $250 for an image and decided that image was going to be sold at $2.50 – 1% of value. Then they turned the language on its head and called it the same industry that they had just crashed… but they added “Micro” to it. As some sort of changing up of the reality. They cannabalized an entire industry so a group of Venture Captialists (Yeah, you KNOW WHO YOU ARE GK) could get rich.
All they had to do was convince the people who were going to be their suppliers that ‘money doesn’t matter’ – it’s a new ‘paradigm’ – content longs to be free… and more and more and more pure claptrap bullshit cause for them it was ALL ABOUT THE FRIGG’N MONEY.
Now they are unable to sustain their own business (they say) because they need more money because their numbers are up.
Yeah… read that again.
And the same people who fell for the whole ‘it’s about the joy of photography’ claptrapbullshit start lining up and defending the people who are so far off the mark that in most sane times they would have NEVER been able to create a business.
But… we do not live in sane times… do we…?
😉
“Why are the Microstock contributors so upset? Is there really a big difference in getting 15% vs 30% (or even 50%) of basically nothing? Seriously, is it really that much bigger a slap in the face? They were getting pennies before. They’re still getting pennies, only fewer pennies”
You’re right, that doesn’t make sense. But that’s because they are making money. The ones who aren’t making money aren’t complaining. It isn’t difficult to bring in 1000-2000 extra a month in microstock if you’re pretty good, and losing 12% of that matters a lot to them.
very interesting. I wonder how the way out will look like.
Well, Wolfgang…. I gotta tell ya.
I don’t honestly know.
Microstock’s prices are creeping up and up and up… at the rate they are going they will be at traditional stock at some point in mid next decade. What will that mean? Competitors springing up and challenging microstock-that-isn’t-microstock with true micro-micro pricing?
Or a total fall out altogether with the quickly advancing and even more stupid Creative Commons shit.
Holding that elusive ‘photo credit’ and the almighty ‘fame’ of being published to a public weened on ‘fame’ as a commodity may actually work. And corporations and business will smile and happily hand over the required ‘photo credit’ to weekend warriors and amateurs and anyone who had the opportunity to make an interesting photograph.
We used to give prizes to the most interesting photographs… the Pulitzer for instance.
Why bother with that shit if there is no value at all to the image… maybe they will stop giving awards for excellence and just print the names of the CC photographers in a program for an expensive dinner and a show.
Yeah… there ya go.
This ranting by professional photographers about how people can be so stupid and devalue their work so much is all fun and nice to read, but I think you all are missing one of the big points here.
Take me for example. I’m a physicist. To earn my money I do research all day long and when I come home I want to relax and do something creative.
So microstock is ideal for me. I have no commitments, no obligations if I shoot crap no one will buy it and if I manage to shoot one mediocre image and earn a few dollars on the side with it even better. There is no entry barrier no huge time investment and it’s fun to boot. As for my time — It sure beats watching TV as an creative outlet.
Sure this will probably never pay for the time & equipment I invest, but then I’ve been an avid hobby photographer since before I was in high school and no one ever thought about giving me money for my holiday photos either. I already have some nice lenses, a few flashes and an SLR camera lying around anyway, so there is no real cost involved either.
So yes I understand that it might be very hard for professional photographers to earn a living from microstock, but then do something else. If you photograph full time you should be much better than I will ever be and there will always be other clients willing to pay for high quality photos.
Alexander.
All that you say is true.
You are missing the point… completely.
The point is that there was nothing wrong with the stock photography business. It wasn’t broken. It was what it was.
Creating a new business model – based on the ability for the photographs to receive wider distribution – wasn’t new. “Microstock” sites could have come in with their model and done several things:
1. They could have chosen to be competitive. Competitive is not 1% of current market… that is stupid low.
2. They could have been discriminating in the work they choose. Instead, they went for volume – their model isn’t about the work.
3. They could have worked to protect their ‘photographers’ and kept the entry point wherever they wanted. Instead, they choose volume over consistency knowing that for THEM volume is key.
4. They could have worked to create a sustainable model for their ‘vendors’ and themselves.
5. They could have valued the work that is done at a reasonable price point and helped to raise the standards even while letting part-time shooters participate.
It is way offensive to keep hearing about the “professional shooters’ as though it is a bad thing. I am sick of it. It is a lie and a distortion and sympotmatic of a way larger problem.
Amateurs and weekend warriors can slap each other on the back, and high-five at each and every ‘take down’ of professional photographers working hard to keep the entire profession afloat… yeah, “screw ’em” sounds all big and bad.
But at some point when reading my article did it not become clear that my argument is there to ELEVATE the amateur, not “take them down?” There is in my article a plea and a hope that the photographers make what their images are worth.
You don’t seem to think your images are worth much.
I do.
Now that is a strange dichotomy… wouldn’t you say?
Yes I’ve just realzied the MS industry is fucking shit and I as soon as I get to the 100 dollar mark I’m going to pull all my images from them. I am ashamed that I even got into it but as an amateur the ‘lure’ of selling an image is too much and it makes you feel important until (if you have a brain) you realize you’re both undercutting yourself and the art form you love. Seriously to all newcomers, stay the fuck away from Microstock.
Microstock Photography Rocks! I earned $200 in my 1st month then now at $ 1,450 from my stock photos from this site http://q.gs/162988/monetizeyourphotos . I hope your experience will be better than mine 🙂
Well, that is great.
My point was nothing about whether people could make money doing micro-stock.
People can make money in many ways.
It just has to do with what one thinks one’s work is worth.
Obviously we believe that to be a different amount.