This is a response I wrote on the HOW Design Forum to a discussion posted by another photographer here: “Photography’s vanishing middle class.”
First off, for those who don’t know what micro-stock is. Micro-stock are sites where photographers (mostly amateur) can post their photos in hopes of selling them for small profits. It’s free for the photographer to post their image on these sites, and when their photo sells ($1-$30), they take a percentage of the sale. Of course, this has caused a lot of heated debates with photographers, and below is my most recent take on the whole issue.
I think everyone here makes great points, and I love reading them.
And coming from the photographer side as well as the designer side of the issue, I have wavered back and forth over the micro-stock issue. First off, I do not sell any of my photography through them, and not because I think they are right or wrong, but instead I think my work is worth much more than what I can make off the site. And I would much rather get paid what I’m worth than sell it for a well-below market price. What this means is that I might make more money doing a shoot for someone, but, all those “extra” shots I take that might be able to earn money on these sites are not. So I’m losing some potential income.
I can understand why an amateur would like to sell their photos. It’s fun. It offers a little income. Etc. And as a business model, micro-stock sites are something to be marveled. People are just handing them money to sell their photos. But does this really devalue photography in general? I’m not entirely convinced yet.
Does it devalue stock photography? YES. But I don’t think it’s all negative with no positives. Yes, professional stock has definitely lost some appeal to these small sites. And I’ll be the first to admit, I buy from these sites if I need a small image here or there. If I need a table top shot of something, it’s cheaper and easier to find the photo than to pull out the cameras, set up the lights and do it myself. Also, there is the argument that people are using more and more photography in their designs which actually helps the photography market in general.
The big problem comes in valuing the work photographers do. There is no question that a professional can do a better job than an amateur. And I don’t think having tons of amateurs in the market brings down the value as much as people think. Professionals need to work off their strengths and use that to convince their clients they are giving them the best they can get. Embrace technology, it’s not going away.
I believe our culture is having fun with the new, cheap technology. But, I also believe we’ll be moving to a more “customized” society where everyone will want their own look & identity and this is where the professionals come in. Companies want to differentiate themselves from one another; they just haven’t learned that a professional can offer them this service. Sooner or later, companies will recognize that using micro-stock sites and logo-mills are doing nothing but homogenizing their look and image.
So, to finish this off, I’ll say it’s up to the photographer to assign a value to their work. I know what I’m worth, and I’m not willing to settle. I’ll continue to use micro-stock, as well as professional stock when necessary. And I’ll continue to educate those I work with and let them know the pros & cons of using a professional photographer, professional stock and micro-stock.
I have been supplying stock photo agencies with photos since 1992. During the 90′s until 2002, I submitted slide film. On average, I made less then $8000.00 a year after expenses.
Three years ago, after much debating, I decided to give the micros a try. They were new and an unknown element. Very little was written about them, many claimed they would die out. At that time, I decided I would submit to both micros and traditional stock. I still do today.
Last year, because I shoot digital and my cost are down, I made $6500.00 with my images in the traditional arena and $14,000 with my images on the micros. I also sold directly to magazine and some prints to increase that income.
Looking at my numbers, my micro images brought me a $5.25 per images in portfolio fee.
Because my images on the micros are RF, I can still market those images to other sources as I see fit. I can’t do that with my RM images. Last month, the micros made $1334.35 the traditional site, nothing. I also sold three articles with photos, some of the photos were on the micros. I also sold some photos, all of which are on the micros, to a magazine that was running a climbing Okinawa story. The magazine side treated me well, about 2500.00.
Lately, I have considered pulling my images from the traditional sites and using the micros as my stock option. I will continue to directly market my photos to magazines, newspapers, and other buyers who may want my images.
The micros are here to stay. What people who only look at the surface don’t realize it that micro sell RF images. These images are not the best option for everyone. The licensee also has a limit of use that the buyer must adhere too.
The micros also have openned new markets that would never have bought images from traditional sites before. South East Asia and other developing countries to start with.
Competition in the photography business is stiff, the micros too. If you want to compete, you need to have several different avenues to selling your images. The micros is one, traditional sites another, you own website one more, and direct sells. By employing all of these methods, you can make a living at photography.
Comment by eman — April 27, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
Hi Eman,
I just wanted to drop a quick note and say thank for the informative post. I’m glad to hear people, such as yourself, are making money on Microstock sites (serious money, not chump change). This is a testament to how rich the photography market is at the moment regardless of where you sit on the issue.
And you’re absolutely right, Microstock is here to stay! More and more sites are popping up, and the quality of the imagery is increasing day by day. Just yesterday Corbis sent out a questionnaire regarding the possibility of offering some lower cost options for buyers. Not exactly Microstock, but the same idea nonetheless. As photographers we need to find out how to make this work. In the end we all need to decide what fits our business, our working style and our financial needs. It sounds like you’ve found a really good niche in the Microstock market for yourself, and I wish you all the best in the future.
Comment by tsmalling — April 28, 2007 @ 2:18 pm