What do buyers know about microstock photography?

Matt3427 · #1 (**permalink**) 10-31-2007, 07:08 PM

Unlike hobby photography, microstock isn?t solely about creating beautiful photos. It?s about creating photos that sell. While that?s true of all forms of professional photography, unlike photographers who shoot on assignment, the microstock photographer has to try to second-guess the market. He or she has to know what people ? usually designers ? want to buy. And that?s rarely just a nice shot of a flower. It can help then to have experience as a photo buyer as well as a photo seller.

The rest of this is worth reading: What buyers know about microstock photography...

helix7 · #2 (**permalink**) 11-01-2007, 05:39 AM

I definitely agree that it helps to view the business from the perspective of a buyer. I've found that it's actually much harder than I expected to continuously think in these terms. I started as a buyer, and later became a seller.

As for what buyers know about microstock, generally speaking, I think there is still a popular belief that microstock is lower quality, unusable, amateur-hour photography and illustration. I hear designers all the time saying that they'll never buy microstock images and continue to use the high-priced image sellers. They won't even look at iStock or any other site.

The few that I've been able to convince to check it out and spend a few bucks on an image just to try it out have been happy with their purchases. But many just view microstock as a fad, a cheap trend, and something that is not to be trusted.

Fortunately for us, that means that there is still a widely untapped resource if image buyers out there who have yet to move any of their business into microstock. I suspect that as microstock agencies stick around, continue to be a presence in design magazines, and grow together as an industry segment, more designers will drop their hang-ups about microstock and start buying our images.

kitsen · #3 (**permalink**) 11-02-2007, 05:35 AM

I'm sure there are designers making use of micros for a larger profit margin... ie, pay less for photos but charge clients the same if not more.

My cousin only goes to iStock if she has a cheap client. A lot of people seem to use iStock and have not even heard of the rest.

e-person · #4 (**permalink**) 11-02-2007, 12:28 PM

I would be more than happy if they all go to Alamy to buy their photos, instead of micros, as I would get more money if they select one of mine. :-)

Editorial · #5 (**permalink**) 11-02-2007, 01:17 PM

I wear both caps, but it's very hard to pin me down on any trend from a buyer's perspective. One pattern is common throughout, most of the purchases we've made, all of the images tend to be on white.

orchidpoet · #6 (**permalink**) 11-02-2007, 02:52 PM

I can see why some designers prefer images from traditional agencies for another reason.

If an advertising agency asks for $20,000 from a client for an ad, and if the client ever finds out that the main image only costs $1.00. What would the client think if the client ever finds out? Would it look good on the agency?

Think this way, if Trump contracts you to furnish his new luxury home with a huge budget, would you go to Walmart for the wall art and furniture? You may actually find very decent pieces, but the point is how Trump would feel about it, lol....

I am not a designer so it is just speculating. However, cheaper doesn't mean better for everyone.

louoates · #7 (**permalink**) 11-02-2007, 04:55 PM

Yesterday I showed a designer who works for a printer a few simple searches on iStock concerning senior men images. She seemed surprised at the variety and quality but shocked at the few bucks they cost. She had mentioned that she had once seen "something" on Shutterstock but it was a long time ago. The feeling I got was that she dismissed those early images as crap at that time.

The surprising thing about this is that when I had asked her earlier if she ever used stock photos before she said that she preferred that her client find whatever photos they wanted and that she didn't want to be bothered to search stock sites (traditional) and then have the price (hundreds of dollars) shot down by the client. Her position was that she didn't want to take all that time finding an image for nothing.

When I suggested that she could easily find just about any image on microstock for a few bucks, use it in a comp layout, then make a decent markup for her time I saw a few lights go on upstairs. Hope she follows up on the links I sent her to the nine sites I'm on.

RacePhoto · #8 (**permalink**) 11-02-2007, 05:54 PM

Good article and things for me to think about as I search for a direction and answers.

Funny, it has a link to a photo by one of the artists. It shows 208 views and no sales. I wonder if they might have linked to something that sold as a better example?

mangia · #9 (**permalink**) 11-03-2007, 08:35 PM

I know one photo adv company who shotted down their photo department because they don't need it any more... They can buy whatever they want for only 1$...

Matt3427 · #10 (**permalink**) 11-08-2007, 02:26 PM

There are some good points in many of your replies. My personal opinion is that shifts in industry standards and procedures (any industry) take time and a growing process that usually begins with a broad-based dismissal of radically new and different methods.

The Trump/Wal-Mart analogy is great, though. There is certainly something to be considered there and I can see that as a concern for agency buyers, especially larger ones. That really is a product of the middle-man in the buying process...if Trump's people bought their own stuff, they'd probably be more than happy to pay $1 if no one could tell the difference anyway.

Anytime there is an established layer of brokerage in business (see the real estate industry), free market forces are hindered.