The problem with microstock
We do an experiment with microstock, and discover that while I sold three times more photos, I earned 40 times less money from the micro stock sales than from a full-on agency - with the exact same photos on sale…
The lesson? If you’re a decent photographer, stay the hell away from micro-stock: The bigger agencies treat you better, pay you more, and actually make an effort to sell your photos on a bigger scale.
A bit of background on this one: I used to work as a freelance photographer, and I have a huge back-library of photos that have been used in print, which is now sitting around, doing nothing much at all. I’ve long been selling them via Alamy, and have made a nice little income on the photos over the years.
A bit of history
The problem is that traditionally, stock photography has been a staple of high-end photographers who want a way to make a long-term investment into their photography: Huge agencies take on the very best photographers and represent them (hence the word ‘agency’), selling their photographs to newspapers, magazines, etc, and take a share of the money for their services, then look after the rest.
Then along came Alamy, which caused waves: It had high quality standards, and demanded the very best from its photographers, but it was one of the first times where any professional photographer could be tied to a large agency and start making money of their stock libraries.
Then something weird happened: Microstock. The basic idea of micro stock photography is that photographers upload their photos, which then are sold for what in the world of stock photography is a ridiculously low amount of money. How ridiculous? Well, a photo on iStockphoto sells typically for 20 times less than a photo on Alamy, which in turn sells for a third of the price of a photo from one of the ‘big boys’.
The real problem here, of course, is simple economics: Even if you have a phenomenally huge library, it’s nigh-on impossible to make a decent living off microstock, simply because the margins are far too low to bother. As a result, the entire low-end of the stock photography market is left to amateurs who want to try and break into making some cash of their photos. No harm done there, you may say, but the problem is that the amateurs - even though many of them are highly talented photographers - are grossly underselling their high-quality photos.
Whereas people used to turn to microstock with a slight tinge of disdain, and an approach of ‘these photos aren’t really good enough, but I can’t afford to use a big agency’s photos with this budget’, the current batch of photos on iStockphoto and the rest of the microstock brigade is actually pretty good.
Which is worrying, because it means that the people who are letting micro stock agencies represent themselves are probably underselling themselves quite drastically.
The experiment
Personally, I’ve got around 400 photos in my portfolio on Alamy, and I make a reasonably good amount of money per month - not enough to live off, but not bad either, considering it’s just sitting there, making money. In fact, 90% of the sales I make are of the same 3 photos, and that gets close to 100% when we take the top 10 photos. So I figured I’d try a little experiment: What happens if I take the same 10 best-selling photos, and upload them to iStockphoto? How many sales will I make? How much money will I make?
Quite apart from the absolutely ridiculous vetting procedures iStockphoto have (that’s another post waiting to happen - suffice to say that I’m vastly unimpressed how they reject photos that I’ve had in print in dozens of magazines, websites and books because of fictional ‘issues’ - and how photos that are very similar, taken within seconds of each other, but with a different angle - get accepted without any problems), the results of my little experiment were frightening.
Over the period I ran this test, I sold 3 photos from the top 10 via Alamy, and 8 photos from the same selection via iStockphoto. Not bad, you may say: I’ve just made nearly three times more sales via a microstock site. Which is entirely undeniable.
However, if you look at the paycheck, the difference is shocking: The 8 sales via iStockphoto put a total of $4.54 in my pocket: Definitely not worth the while it took me to upload, tag, and faff about with the photographs. In contrast, the pay-check from Alamy, was just over $200.
Apart from the entirely selfish approach, which can be summarised into ‘I would much rather make $200 than $4.54′, there is the grander scheme of things to keep in mind: It’s all fine and dandy to chuck your photos on a site and make some cash off them, but is it worth it if this means that you’re taking the bread and butter away from someone else?
The bigger picture
A recent article on the BBC News website explains what the problem really is:
“If photographers, like any artist, are going to continue to invest and create and be involved and if the business want to see the types of images from professional photographers that are really extraordinary then they are going to have to support the artists,” says Betsy Reid from the Stock Artists Alliance which represents professional stock photographers.
“Unfortunately, we need to be paid to survive. I have seen very little evidence, if any, that anyone can thrive on a microstock income,” says Reid.
Microstock has also put pressure on professional photographers like Shannon Fagan. He now has to produce 60 saleable shots in one session rather than the 10 he used to aim for and the budget cuts affect his entire operation.
“My fees are dropping. I presented that to the agencies that sell the photos, and said this is a problem. There is nothing they can do about it. It is not their problem. It gets transferred to me, the crew, the models, the locations,” he says.
Another piece of writing from the Photographers Direct site rings very true to me:
The painful injustice of microstock sites can be seen from the July 23rd 2007 cover of Time Magazine. The cover has 3 images. One is credited to Getty Images, one to istockphoto. How much did the photographers earn?
… obviously, both photographers were good enough to be featured on the cover of Time Magazine - but one of them screwed themselves over badly. While they can now say they’ve been published on the cover of Time Magazine, one of them hasn’t seen more than a few dollars for their photo, while the other photographer made enough for a week-end break in New York for his troubles. Does that seem fair to you?
A word on RF / RM
Microstock is typically sold as Royalty Free (RF). This means that once the end-user has purchased a licence to use this photograph, they can use it again and again without paying royalties - If a band decides to use your photograph on the front of a album cover, or if a magazine decides to use it in a mast-head (a banner that goes across the top, typically used to mark off a specific section of a magazine), they can use the photo again and again as often as they please.
Rights managed photography (RM), however, works differently - in this case, a publisher buys the right to use your photograph in a very specific setting (print run of up to 10,000, in the US only, in the months of April and May, for example), which means that if the magazine decides to use your photo one more time, they have to pay you one more time.
There has long been some animosity between professional stock photographers, who have traditionally been selling their images rights-managed, and photographers who have decided to sell their photos on an RF licence, because the former feel that the latter are devaluing the market.
The discussion rages further, of course, with the introduction of the microstock markets, where you not only don’t get a choice about which licence you sell your photographs under, but it’s also selling at much lower price
Some advice
If you’re good enough to take superb-quality photos, put some work into getting adequate representation, and sign with a good stock photography agency. Selling your best photos for cents is an insult - not just to yourself, but also to those who work full-time to produce high quality stock photography.
In the grand scheme of things, if you keep giving away your best photos for cheap, you’re doing yourself a serious disservice.
I, for one, will take down my photos off iStockPhoto. It’s not worth the hassle, and it’s just plain wrong.
Finally, you may be interested an article we wrote a while ago, entitled How Much should I charge for a Photo…
Do you like this article? Tell the world using one of these:
[
Digg
|
Facebook
| 
del.icio.us
| 
Stumble Upon ]
reddit_url='http://photocritic.org/microstock/'
Categories: Business | PC articles
Tags: Microstock | Stock photography
This entry is © Haje Jan Kamps / Photocritic.org, and was posted on Monday, March 24th, 2008. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
here
#1 - March 24th, 2008 at 21:50
While I agree that having your picture on the cover of Time magazine should warrant some extra commission, it all depends on iStockPhoto’s publication policies… personally, I think there should be limitations as to the number of subscribers that a magazine can have before they can use a photograph. As well, there should be stipulations as to cover photos versus editorial photos.
Another thing to consider is the marketing that is done by the respective sites. I don’t think any of the micro payment sites have yet to really break into the big time. iStockPhoto has some great work, but a lot of it is not great, which diminishes its appearance and the value of the respective works. Also, people should be able to apply their own fee structure to each photo, but I don’t believe they allow that (I could be wrong).
One of these days, Flickr will turn into a micro-payment site, and put the commercial stock photo sites into a talespin. But that’s just my opinion.
#2 - March 24th, 2008 at 22:07
Ron: I think that’s part of the problem with Royalty Free in general, though: If you, as an organisation, buy a picture once, you can use it as often as you want. And it doesn’t matter whether you’re Times Magazine or, indeed, a no-name blog somewhere…
#3 - March 25th, 2008 at 01:02
I heard that some people like Yuri Arcus at http://www.arcurs.com are making very good profits out of microstock. And while I agree that underselling ourselves is terrible Im wondering if microstock is the way to go now and we have to adapt and follow.
#4 - March 25th, 2008 at 05:30
I enjoy your blog and your writing. This being said, this article is very misleading, and you are oversimplifying things. And your pre-bias is very evident.
You compare apples to bananas to chicken (or whatever).
Your 20x and 3x estimations are completely wrong. You do not point out if it is RF or RM images.
On average an image at istock sells at $1.5 for me. It can top at a bit over $50 (this is my cut) if it is extended licensed (over 500K uses). This is not a lot, but not pennies too.
The average (nowadays) for the classic ‘big’ stock sites give about $50 per sale for Royalty Free. This is your cut. Numbers from some of the Getty and Corbis photographers.
Keep in mind we are speaking in ‘average’ numbers. Some of the sales are $150 (your cut, the total is higher, sometimes much higher), and sometimes it could be just as microstock - a dollar or less - when your photograph is a part of Photodisc sale.
#5 - March 25th, 2008 at 08:14
that is a problem encountered in many professions, not just photography. as soon as some people start selling the service cheaply the pros are going to suffer. one good example would be webdesign, where everybodys nephew is making sites for (almost) free.
#6 - March 25th, 2008 at 09:02
Boris: I think I’m not hiding my pre-bias: I’m not a fan of micro stock photography - from a photographer’s point of view.
Either way, if your average is $1.5 versus $50, then the point still stands, right? That’s still a very serious difference in what is essentially the same product.
#7 - March 25th, 2008 at 14:41
Yes, the average is quite different, but there are at least few things to consider.
In classic stock - your costs per shoot are high and you select less photos to submit. Then your sales in count are quite lower than microstock.
In microstock you can have very cheap shoots, you can have moderately cheap shoots. Then you sell a lot of copies of a lot of images.
The best contributors of istockphoto are given the chance to submit to Getty’s RF libraries.
Their feedback is not too optimistic. Generally it does not seem the profits to be higher (or at least much higher).
As for the image on Times Magazine from istockphoto:
The guy who shot the image would probably get like $50 instead of what a $1000? I dunno. But you forget that he is probably not a pro, and the alternative was to not have his photo on istock and anywhere else. Thus the alternative is not that he got more money, but that he would not have his photo used at all.
#8 - March 25th, 2008 at 21:46
I tend to agree with Boris.
I’m not a professional photographer, but i do make some nice money selling stock photos i take on weekends.
If i were to go fully pro, I would not put the photos i invested so much time in on a microstock site. but since i only spend an hour or two a week on photography, and can produce decent quality photos, why not make a few bucks.
This said, if a photographer thinks his or her work are of RM quality, then by all means, don’t go with microstock, this should be something photographers hear more about.
#9 - March 27th, 2008 at 02:30
I make about $300 a month from microstock from photos I take as a hobby. Could I make more per image? Not likely, since I don’t have the time to go find a representative, call people, or otherwise market my photos, because I have a day job (which, by the way, I love doing). Had it not been for microstock, my photos would be gathering digital dust on my hard drive.
The people who buy my images include churches, teen summer camps, blog writers, and grandmothers printing newsletters. Without microstock, these people wouldn’t be buying stock at all.
If the “professionals” with their expensive lighting and high-paid models contribute to a photograph with a greater value than my own, then sure, they should get paid more. But look at it another way. Maybe you can get much the same results with creative techniques, digital gear, cheap lighting rigs (like the photographers on strobist.blogspot.com use), and attractive friends. Maybe to the majority of photography consumers there’s not much of a difference between my photos and your photos, except that mine were cheaper to produce.
You see, in my opinion, every article like this is tantamount to whining. If you can find a buyer for your image at the price that you want, then go right ahead and do it, but don’t criticize the way I choose to make my own buck because it’s not for you. If I’m cutting into your sales because your clients would rather pay me less money, then either (1) they didn’t need your quality to begin with, or (2) I can produce the same quality image as you, but cheaper.
Just like all things, the market will bear it all out. Whether you like it or not, there’s a bunch of us perfectly happy to shoot for microstock. Just because we’ve found a way to sustain our photography hobbies and live perfectly comfortably doing so doesn’t make us, or microstock, the enemy.
#10 - March 27th, 2008 at 21:40
isn’t this more an issue of digital photography and not so much microstock? millions of people get digital cameras. without the limitations of film, and with instant feedback, regular people are able to get photos previously only possible with professional equipment. supply increases, and demand remains constant. prices drop. is the photographer a profession destined to go the way of the buggy whip salesman? possibly
microstock offers these average photographers a chance to make a few bucks. it also drops the overall value of photographs in general. of course “real photogs” like Haje have a problem with microstock. in much the same way that factory workers hate illegal immigrants or computer guys hate bangalore. photography is being outsourced. it won’t be stopped, regardless of articles like this one
#11 - March 29th, 2008 at 12:06
What you have here is simple economics.
You have now, thanks to crowd sourcing, much more competition. With more competition, prices are going to fall.
That’s how it is.
There’s nothing you can do about that unless you create barriers to competition (like a rep that will only select the ‘best’ photographers). When you have so many stock sites that allow anyone to upload similar products, the price of those products must go down.
The only way to survive is to sell at a lower cost than your competition (assuming you have a similar product).
The end is nigh.
If a ‘pro’ photographer cannot produce a photograph that is vastly superior to that of the ‘amateur’, then that pro photographer will soon be looking for another job.
#12 - March 31st, 2008 at 09:45
I see the microstock sites as a stepping stone for amateur photographers such as myself. At this point in time, i would not be able to get an agent to sell my photos. By seeing what sells, what gets accepted, and what doesn’t on microstock sites, I learn what works and what doesn’t, thus improving my photography skills. A photo selling on a microstock site has a lot more weight than a “nice photo” comment on Flickr.
#13 - April 3rd, 2008 at 17:48
Ronny, I totally agree with you….
Something else that nobody has mentioned is the near impossibility of getting into one of the big stock agencies. Yes, if I could be selling my images as RM, I would be. But it is almost impossible to get in. I know, I have been trying for the past five years. And yes, you can make the statement that maybe my images are not good enough to get in…. but I have been with istock for the past ten months and made over $1200.00 last month.
Bottom line, everything changes. With increased competition, prices will drop. Microstock is here to stay, and hopefully, so if Rights Managed (just in a bit of a different business plan that in previous decades). And don’t forget, Getty owns Istockphoto……..
#14 - April 12th, 2008 at 05:19
I created an account with alamy.com and they wouldn’t let me upload because of file size. They want like 45MB and mine were in the realm of 486 kb. I’m using a canon xt. any suggestions???
#15 - April 14th, 2008 at 16:11
Not knowing how long you ran your test, but guessing it lasted one month. I would said that $200 isn’t much of a total. I made 9 x that much last month as a micro-stocker.
#16 - April 21st, 2008 at 11:48
I am just starting into micro stock and I am curious about the test you did. I am looking at getting into stock more and want to be as informed as possible.
Were the photos on Alamy that you sold RF or RM? This was a one month test? As they say in stock, the larger the portfolio the better the chances of having your images found, so only using 10 photos on istockphoto, is that really a fair test in a month?
I currently have 20 photos uploaded to istock and have 17 downloads, which is pretty good to me, but I know I have been slacking in getting more uploaded. After reading this article, I applied at Alamy and was accepted, I am just not sure how to handle the files there. Should I use my best photos and should I go RM instead of RF and post my rejects from Alamy to micro stock sites?
Thanks for the great blog, keep the info stream coming!
#17 - April 23rd, 2008 at 15:40
1000 images: 2007 income.
Same images on all sites listed below, RF.
my take home
Total from Alamy: $2400
Total from all Micro stock agencies: (includes iStock, Dreamstime, Big stock, Shutterstock, Fotolia, Stock Expert, and 123 Royalty free)
$11,000
I hate micro but the difference in income is real.
#18 - April 26th, 2008 at 11:34
$2400 from Alamy $11,000 from micro stock seems like a no brainer to me!
#19 - May 31st, 2008 at 17:02
If you don’t think microstock is a good thing why are you advertising the micro site using adsense?
#20 - June 6th, 2008 at 12:00
$2400 from Alamy $11,000 from micro stock seems like a no brainer to me!”
$2,400 from 1 site vs. $11,000 from 7 sites….hmmm.
hmmmm.. while this photographer makes this much from seven sites, many are equaling or exceeding this amount using one site.
#21 - July 29th, 2008 at 15:06
Thanks for the article. I was thinking about putting some of my photographs up for sale, and after reading this article, I will make sure to get good value for my work.