At the risk of precipitating another meltdown, let me ask -

What are your experiences selling Microstock ? Which ones are best ?

Edmund

Microstock remains a controversial subject, but an increasing number of pro photographers are dipping their toes in, for the simple reason you can make a decent average per image return that is comparable or better than from traditional outlets.

I make about $700 per month in total from microstock on a potfolio of about 700 images - not many by stock standards. I also sell different work through RM sites. I use a pen name "Douglas Freer" for my microstock work.

The "best" seems to vary from photographer to photographer, but I'd suggest the following four are generally regarded as the best: iStockphoto, Shutterstock, Dreamstime and Fotolia. Some like StockXpert, Bigstock, and there are a few others.

I have just written a book on the subject (under my microstock pen name) for Elsevier, so at the risk of self-promotion and publicity (and I only mention it as it is directly relevant to your question and the only specialist book on the subject, so I think its legit. to do so), you might want to check that out when its published in early April. I include links to various sites and some earnings examples taken from real life

See: http://www.amazon.com/Microstock-Photograp...06187358&sr=8-1

Quentin

Could I please have the name of your contact at Elsevier ? I'll ask for a sample and put up a review on my tech blog. It's time I revive that thing anyway.

Edmund

Edmund,

I have sent you a PM message with the contact details

Quentin

I should have added that I include a link to the Luminous Landscape in the book (as a fine art site of interest)

Quentin

The stock industry is in a downturn for a lot of reasons, primarily because their only response to technology or market changes is just to lower their prices.

From a buyers standpoint lowering prices isn't bad as long as content improves, though stock usually looks like stock.

The consolodation of agencies by Getty and Corbis makes it even harder for a buyer to find something unique, as typing in the words business concepts probably bring up 80,000 thumbnails.

The most interesting thing I find about the digital stock industry is the pricing model, which is based as much on file size as it is quality or uniqueness and the pricing does not reflect production values.

The fact a RM or RF image of a tree goes for the same price as an image with 12 models, props and locations makes no sense in any form of advertising planning, or budgets.

Then there is the problem that that tree photo, regardless of the buying structure can be used for an international brand while it runs concurrently with a viagra promotion by an online pharmacy

Basically the stock industry needs a compelte overhaul and a new marketing approach, but until someone with deep pockets or heavy market penetration does something different (see I-tunes) it will probably just continue to respond by lowering prices, grouping new agencies and clogging the airwaves with the same imagery.

Micro or dollar stock doesn't just exist because of price, (though at this level price plays a large part in the buying decision), but dollar stock exists because some of it is just as good as what the traditional agencies were offering.

Whether "just as good" means anything in the consumers mind is another thing alltogether.

After all, as a photographer we are hired to shoot something unique for that one client, one brand or service and something that is interesting enough to stop the viewer.

Rarely does stock do this.

JR

True, and the problem I encountered when speaking to designers and small businesses were the absurd prices they were being asked to pay for generic imagery by the likes of Getty. The old major libraries left the door wide open for the emergence of new pricing models.

Quentin

Quentin,

Abusrb is a moving number.

Phtotography that costs $300,000 but raises sales on an international brand by 400% is a deal, consequently a $10,000 stock photograph that is nothing more than a retread of an old concept . . .well yes, that can be absurd, but not because of the $10,000, or even if it's $1.

Photographers love the photograph, talk about the photograph, constantly try to reinvent the photograph, but usually give very little thought as to whether the photograph they shoot for commerce moves product or not and don't really think that if their photograph can have a desired effect on commerce that it is worth more.

Regardless of portfolios, locations, photographic style, I can give you about ten reasons why someone should hire a photographer, or buy a photograph and though the final photograph is very important, it's still about number 3 on the list.

Still, the estabilished stock agencies didn't really leave the door open for microstock, this is just the current pattern of the stock photography industry in general.

Add more images, sell for less, then add a lot more images, sell them for less, usually to try to appease an owner or the stockholders.

Stock has been moving in that direction for a decade and though microstock or dollar stock sounds like a new concept, it really isn't, it just has more acceptence.

Since my income is derived by specific assignment work, the proliferation of stock does nothing but improve my market because once it all is available and all looks the same, an advertiser has to do something that is more unique.

This doesn't mean that there is not good and unique stock in the marketplace, but it is very hard to identify.

JR

While I hate the concept of Dollar stock this bloke is quite interesting..

Yuri an istock contributor who seems to be doing pretty well

food for thought

SMM

As with any pyramid scheme those at the top can do very well out of it.

But as James Russell said this is not a new concept and goes all the way back to the birth of royalty free and Photodisc - single images at the dollar price point but all sold in bulk.

The real issue here is not the price point (which after all is just market forces) but is the royalty free marketing model in general, which by its nature commoditizes the imagery, and results in ever decreasing prices to try and maintain market share.

What's left for those not wanting to get involved with the bargain basement? Rights managed and pricing that is based on exposure and media spend, but only for those that can offer something personal, individual, creative, unique.....

Challenging times!

Anyone who can take thousands of pictures of the same shiny happy people deserves the $50k dollars in sales that it has got him! (Assuming most of the downloads are of the $1 variety, it might be more depending on the filesizes).

It might be a business model... but it seems difficult to make work any way other than as a hobby. It has taken him 2.5 years to earn lets be charitable and say $70k.

He has just spent abotut $30k on a H3D. So that amounts to $40k over 2.5 years, lets be charitable and say $20k per annum.

However this sum has to be subtracted from 'opportunity cost' ie: what he could have earned doing something else...

So this only works if those images keep selling, and selling... (not saying they won't), or unless his alternative career option was 'more fries with that sir?'

I dont know where you get the $50k from he says 650000 licenses PA

(hes not just on Istock but many other too libraries I think)


But in comparison when I had two photographers working for me we were billing quite a lot - but my cost were pretty high too - and we were just a one county agency

He seems to employ a load of people too

maybe not great for a 'global market leader'

But I reckon $650kPA (probabgly double or treble that) is good going for a company ? makes one think its not just for hobbyists

not saying that I approve or that it is the best route

SMM

An interesting factor is that any image that starts to sell should continue selling -

Edmund

No not necessarily, in fact the opposite is true.

JR

Why ?

Edmund

RF stock eats itself and micro RF eats itself very quickly indeed.

Each library has its segment of the market, ie photo buyers eyes, and these segments will overlap. This pattern will define the selling potential of a single photo. This is RF so once the image has saturated the market to its max potential (think a bell curve) it's not going to get sold again in any meaningful volume. Volume is king for RF but as you can only sell it once to each individual buyer it maxes out. So your top selling pic is suddenly a clichéd, old, tired, has been! And to kick you when you're down, they'll keep using it without paying you a penny extra.

Its not true. Popular images seem to remain popular.

Tim is right in that the real argument was against RF generally, but that argument was lost years ago. The RF end game was always going to be microstock. Emotionally I prefer (and therefore still sell) RM stock, but you can't get away from the fact that RF, and now its microstock sub-set, makes money and is a popular choice with buyers.

The stuff I sell for microstock is produced especially for it so it does not cannibalize my RM and non stock work.

Quentin

My take http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=27245958

Kevin.

But read the whole thread....

Hi Kevin, I hope you do brilliantly on Alamy after your great start - but to make a valid comparison, you need to see how it goes over a longer period. $3k sales are very few and far between.

As you know, my view is do both micro and macro stock. Its a bit like investing in government bonds and stocks. You spread the risk.

Quentin

I would give them a try on a few images and just see how you think it would work out, for me I think it would be a very bad move for what I do. Others might see it differently.
I complain when Alamy only get $50. or less, it looks like a good deal compared with the micros.
I think the ones that make good money out of micros do so because they are the first to take it seriously, if all pro stock shooters started shooting for micros seriously I don't think any pro would make any money.

Kevin.

Yeah, I was just netting up his iStock downloads. I agree it could add up. Maybe there is a business there.

Anyhow... iStocks owners Getty are now starting even to cannibalise this, their own market.

www.picapp.com

The reality is that on the internet, the value of any digitized media tends to zero as the volume rises.

In the end there is plenty of room at the bottom (and thats where the micros feed), but it will be more comfortable at the top.

http://aphotoeditor.com/2008/03/19/a-thoug...of-photography/

Seem to? Well do they or not? What's you data? What's your time scale? Popular for you could be peanuts for someone else. Are you willing to put some solid numbers on this?



Really? In my view this new micro RF proves the very opposite - that RM is the only long term stable business model that any serious photographer can work by. The same business model (fees based on usage) that any commissioned photographer worth their salt is working by.



Be under no illusion that by entering that market you are seriously limiting the earnings potential of your pictures - but if all you want to do is shoot cookie cutter images then fair enough.

I came across that fellow Yuri when trawling a micro stock forum and he stated that he had hit the ceiling of his earnings potential. He sunk several thousand in production costs on a shoot and saw zero rise in revenue/volume.

Every market has a finite size (Getty, Alamy, micros whatever) and if you are selling at a dollar price point and giving away all rights for that one off fee you can only grow so far. Imagine what he'd be earning if he wasn't shooting for micro prices.

Yea, whatever, Tim, I have had this debate so many times before and I and many others have backed up our assertions that honestly, no offence, I cannot be bothered to go through it all again. Its like Deja Vu all over again

Enjoy your Easter

Quentin

PS e.g. see this near 1,000 message thread on Alamy http://www.alamy.com/forums/Default.aspx?g=posts&t=816

There are opinions on microstock to suit all tastes somewhere in there. Have fun rummaging through it - always assuming you don't lose the will to live half way through...

Sorry, I'm just interested in business models is all! It can obviously work for a select few but I personally can't see the long term prospects.



My interest doesn't stretch that far though!

I know for a fact that the fastest growing sector of the market right now is in Microstock but quite honestly i would rather look for a different outlet for my imagery than join the bottom feeders in the stock business.

This month i saw my first ever Royalty Free sale where i grossed around 20pence.... in fact i only have 2 RF images, all the rest are in Rights
Managed collections, and that's where i will be sticking, dwindling marketplace or not as i'm used to selling images for 5000 times as much, times are changing but not that much.

I don't mean any disrespect, but:

You guys who have no experience in microstock are incorrect with your calculations on how much money a microstock photographer earns.

For your info, you earn a lot more than $1 per sale.

Images that sell, will continue to sell over time, period. I don't know how, or why, but some images are just downloaded at an insane rate. (One at iStockphoto has sold over 10,000 times).

Also, iStock has recently raised the prices (in January), not lowered. Even though the volume of images is rising rapidly, the photographers are now earning more than ever, and will continue to earn more in the future.

Now here comes the flames from the old school photographers, but hopefully, Quentin can back me up on this.

A quick note on that "Yuri" guy: I believe he's sponsored by Hasselblad now. He probably didn't pay for his camera.

I'm reluctant to post again because we all know what happens to threads about microstock. But, yup, you are right, of course Not that being right seems to make much difference in this debate

Quentin

In Microstock then how much do you earn per license ? Whilst I admire Yuri's business acumen it all depends if you treat photography just as a money making exercise. It looks like he works hard for what he earns, but there's no way I could shoot his smiley shiny faced models day in and day out even if it is well paid.

Pete

Agreed!

When you look at what does sell well, you have to ask - do I want to make those images? Worse than reading the 1,000 post thread. Tedius.

No offense to others that do. Especially when starting out, it is fun to take any kind of photos.

But I have been at this for 30+ years since getting a degree in photo. I want to challange myself, and follow my own initiative, and create a niche for myself *prior* to thinking whether it will sell. That said, I also have an MBA, so I am not an "artiste". Just getting too old to do what doesn't really engage me.

Also seems odd to be discussing micro in the MFDB thread - buy a $30K camera for micro?

Best,
Michael

Quentin- what exactly do you mean by "make"?

Is that a gross or a net figure? Is it your profit after your costs?

I understand that you invest in your own photography business using money earned in the legal profession. Are you in profit after that investment? It's a different situation from many others here who are having to make a living from the real profit/loss equation on their business. Perhaps you aren't asking the question because you don't need to.

I'm asking it because I too earn the majority of my income from another source (television production)- some of which I plough back into photography at very modest levels of profit.

You have complained about the poor quality of the microdebate and I have to agree. Why it is that so often those who agitate most against micrsotock are those whose market is least affected by it- i.e editorial photographers selling non-generic images to newspapers and textbooks?

I haven't yet seen anything to alter my view that micrsostock is essentially a file-sharing community of small graphic designers whose benefit comes not from their income on stock sales but from the benefit to their main business of being able to find affordable imagery- at last. They know what they're doing because they are their own customers.

Why should we begrudge them that?

Looking at the latest microstar Yuri you have to say his work would be fine for tens of thousands of small business leaflets but it doesn't look like page layout stuff to me.

How can a young man be so aesthetically worn out? Many of his frames are too cluttered with teeth and faces and don't communicate anything emotionally. Not much competiton for RM advertising market there, though it is slick and clean. He knows what he's doing.

I don't think anyone is going to be producing stock that gives advertisers the contemporary emotional message rquired to cut through to a jaded/sophistcated public in the numbers required to "make money" from the microstock model.

Vive La Difference!

Andrew Parker

Which is exactly why i will continue to put 95% of my energy into producing Rights Managed imagery..

been doing this for the last 10 years as sole income, and have no intention changing..... time will tell.

Maybe he wouldn't be. My impression, from the people I meet in Paris, is that the people at the top of the pyramid make good money, but the middle tier are steadily getting less well paid.

Edmund

Gross, but its just 700 or so images. Anyone looking to make a living from stock would have a larger portfolio than that.

I receved an email recently from Getty with the top ten images from Getty and the top ten from iStock shown as thumbnails. the iStock images in my view were better.

The quality divide has vanished, except for the highest "high end"; that's why a number of traditional stock photographers feel threatened. Their comfort zone is threatened, probably not before time.

Don't underestimate the quality of microstock imagery, even if a lot of it is artistically unimaginative. The same is also true of most traditional stock library fodder.

It all started out as an experiment; odd how it has developed from a newsgroup, to book project. I'm not an obvious candidate for microstock, but I recognize a good business idea when I see it.

Quentin

Quentin,

I mean no disrespect, but I must ask, how can having only 700 images in mircostock and making only $700 a month make you (or anyone) an expert enough about the microstock industry to write a book that will instruct others?

I think this is a fair question that no one else has brought up.

I also set up and run the yahoo micropayment group on Yahoo, which was the first independent (non-library controlled) discussion forum, a rich source of information; I have interviewed many other microstock photographers and exchanged info with four of the leading group owners. In short - research, just like anyone else who writes about a subject. My direct experience is a bonus.

Additionally, I used to run a small RM stock library so I have direct experience of the industry, albeit the traditional side.

The suggestion that I write a book came from a library owner, Jon Oringer of Shutterstock. He, rightly or wrongly, thought I was the best person to do so. To quote his comment from the back of the book:

"Douglas's book [that's Douglas Freer, my microstock persona] is a much needed guide to the exploding Microstock market. with information for contributing photographers and image buyers, its a tool for both groups to navigate and benefit from this exciting industry"

That answer your question, John?

Quentin

With all due respect Quentin, actually going out and taking the pictures  and earning your living with them is 'the' only way of judging if it makes business sense. Any amount of interviewing Photographers, agencies etc will not give you firsthand experience to become an expert. I have had many discussions with stock shooters over the years, and sat in countless seminars with the likes of Getty, also been asked on behalf of Getty to represent them as a travel shooter with clients, but i know there's nothing like doing it full time and having to make it pay.

Gary.

I hear what you say, Gary, but the microstock industry is so new (it started in 2003, and really only got going in 2005) that there are very few contributors making a living from it full time as yet. Most of the book is directed towards new entrants to stock photography who should find the advice of value and its not expensive.

But there we are, if you are not persuaded, that's too bad, I'm not here to promote microstock and this, therefore, is my last message on the subject, as I'm here to discuss and read about other matters (I get quite enough input on microstock elsewhere, thanks very much). Talk amongst yourselves

Fair comment! As i have said before, time will tell.

Gary.

Quentin,

I agree the quality divide has almost vanished, some Microstock is good quality, rivalling and often exceeding RM material. But now people are paying stupidly low fees for good photography will they ever pay more? I doubt it personally.

Photography, like the music business is undergoing a major revolution. Heaven knows where it will end up. In the old days of transparencies, photo libraries made a large portion of their turnover from search and admin fees. Now of course they can't do this as everything is digital and online. As these microstock agencies get bigger and bigger what will happen next ? Maybe the next logical step in the evolution of stock photography is that the images will be given away free.

With this statement-

"The quality divide has vanished, except for the highest "high end"; that's why a number of traditional stock photographers feel threatened. Their comfort zone is threatened, probably not before time. "

One would think you've got something against good hard working stock photographers. Why is that ?

Pete

[/QUOTE]I agree the quality divide has almost vanished, some Microstock is good quality, rivalling and often exceeding RM material[QUOTE]

'Some' is the word, this hardly constitutes 'the quality divide has almost vanished' does it. If people think that the majority of what's on Microstock sites is almost as good as most Rights Managed stuff, god help us all..

Gary.

No offence, Pete, but I said above

"this, therefore, is my last message on the subject"

Well I lied; this, though is.

cheers

Quentin

I agree the quality divide has almost vanished, some Microstock is good quality, rivalling and often exceeding RM material

Gary,

I'm with you. The thought of doing microstock makes my blood run cold. I want to cry when I see how much people pay to use images on these microstock sites ! Check out the Shutterstock site, you can download 25 images a day (750 per month) for just £149.00 !

The problem as I see it is that future picture buyers/users will get used to paying little or no money for the images they use. Will they even recognise a good image if they see one ? Will they search the other RM sites ?

With music now, the younger generations (who are the future photo buyers/users) expect to get their MP3's either free or for very little cost. My son hasn't bought a regular priced CD in years. There's no way of putting the Genie back in the bottle once it's escaped.

In my opinion the ONLY way forward for good photographers who value their work is to continue producing work that moves and interests them.

Maybe there will be a few people left that will know a good photo when they see one and want something unique. I do have a little bit of faith left somewhere.

Pete

Quentin,

You gave a fair response, to my fair question.

I just wish people would get rid of those incredibly lame emoticons.

My take on books for photography is that 99% are just aggregates of information and nothing new in thought or idea. I was interested in what you brought differently to the table.

Pete,

Firstly let me say that i do see the Rights Managed model surviving, however it will never be of the volume and price point of lesser imagery, in fact you make a good point with regards to MP3's and downloads, but there are of course still people like myself who still buy CD's and in fact vinyl because it is of the quality required and mp3 is not. Now i know i'm in the minority as one who spends a fortune on a top CD player and turntable but i can tell you now that vinyl is very much having a revival right now, quality never dies.

I am presently having to re-evaluate my stock shooting, but am confident that there will always be a need for unique and inspiring imagery, and that clients will pay for this. It is as you say, going to be a difficult period of transition and clients are most definately expecting more for less, but dig in and don't let your standards drop.

Regards,
Gary.

Perhaps you would be so kind to enlarge on this? The prices on iStockphoto go up to $12 per image. The photographer gets what 20-30%. But surely the size distribution of downloads are near the bottom end of the size scale?

You intimate that you have personal experience of this, can you be a bit less short on detail?

There are clearly a few people doing very well. I imagine like anybody doing well they need to be pretty well organised and focused about what they are doing.

Are you one of them?

Gary,

Like you I have faith that good and indeed unique RM photography will survive. I believe that the top shooters in terms of quality will survive too. There always has been many stock photographers who were average and unfortunately it's these shooters who will suffer.

My standards rise as I get older, they're not going to drop. There's no way I'm giving up my Linn LP12 and vinyl just yet !

Interesting times indeed.

Pete

Yup, my LP12 is staying also!! and so is my Naim CDS3/555PS

and as you say, good stock shooters are the ones who will survive.

Gary.