BBC UK Report on Stock Photography

jimiking · #1 (**permalink**) 11-25-2007, 09:52 PM

The BBC did a stock photography editorial piece highlighting the impact of microstock on the overall market as part of their weekly "Click" programme this weekend.

The text editorial link is below. You can also view the report in the show itself (video link on the right of the editorial). The report is about 13 minutes in and well worth watching.

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Click | New threat to stock photo sales

orchidpoet · #2 (**permalink**) 11-25-2007, 10:19 PM

It is an interesting article but we have already been experiencing these things. Undeniably, micro stock industry is quite oppressive by nature for average photographers. I don't think there is an answer except time will eventually tell.

e-person · #3 (**permalink**) 11-25-2007, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orchidpoet

It is an interesting article but we have already been experiencing these things. Undeniably, micro stock industry is quite oppressive by nature for average photographers. I don't think there is an answer except time will eventually tell.

I will add that microstock does not generally pay a fair price to contributors either. That makes me feel silly. How on earth did I even think of doing it?

jimiking · #4 (**permalink**) 11-25-2007, 11:57 PM

If you watch the video it comes across that the microstock industry is strangling the income of the real stock photographers. At least that's the way the NY photographer in the video tells it. I'm sure that to some degree that's factual.

For me (as a designer) I can buy a photo that's probably 90%, if not as good as a pro stock photo from a microstock site for a dollar at website resolution and for a max of 6 dollars at print resolution. It's no contest. the clients I deal with wouldn't pay real stock prices and are very happy at Microstock prices, which most of the time I don't even feel the need to add to their invoice, since the cost of the photo's is so tiny.

As for whether it's a fair price to contributors, well nobody strapped me down and beat me until I signed up.

louoates · #5 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 01:51 AM

Micro is a fair marketplace for both willing sellers and buyers. To suggest otherwise is to deny its success. Those who feel they're getting a bad deal can go elsewhere. I haven't seen any chain burns on anybody in this business. But it does make for a spirited debate.

orchidpoet · #6 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 02:34 AM

After witnessing some heated debates, I would like to make a suggestion - we are here because we want to discuss and share opinions with others, so let's try to hear each other, stay calm, objective, non-judgemental, and agree to disagree, in a civil and friendly way.

Different opinions will not go away because other people disagree with strong emotions. Strong emotions are not good for your health, either. Perhaps an open mind will help us see ourselves and situations more clearly, then we can all make informed decisions either we want to continue or go away.

My observation is that most micro photographers join the group of contributors for the following reasons:

1. Financial Needs
Due to job loss, health reasons, unhappiness with current employment, etc., this group of contributors work very hard to achieve their financial goals by trying to build a portfolio very quickly, they are very driven because they need to support themselves. However, financial fairness also affects this group the most.

2. Eduational and Experimental Needs
Amateurs and semi-pros want to use micro stock photo agencies to improve their skills and test the sellability of their photos. They may continue to contribute or they may go away, depending on their satisfaction level with the agencies. I have referred a few people (including some good artists and designers) to various agencies, but few continue to contribute because they are not happy with the payments and refusals. They do not depend on micro stock photos for income.

3. Need Extra Market for Extra Photos
Professional photographers and designers may join the group because they have extra photos from their assignments, other shooting opportunities and archives, in other words, they have a lot of inventories. They welcome the extra market for these photos because they are highly productive and some are very business savvy by hiring others to make mass productions.

This group also pushes the micro photo industry standards to higher levels because all amacteurs and semi-pros will have to try very hard to match up.

At present, there are probably enough supplies and needs to sustain the devleopment of the micro photo industry for a while - other people have already pointed out that there are increasing awareness and needs from those who are more than willing to buy affordable photos which they will not otherwise afford through traditional stock agencies.

Will the balance of needs and supplies continue? Some people have said that there is a decline of sales with some agencies. I don't know the answer, as I said before, only time will tell.

helix7 · #7 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orchidpoet

...Will the balance of needs and supplies continue? Some people have said that there is a decline of sales with some agencies. I don't know the answer, as I said before, only time will tell.

There have been plenty of doom-and-gloom discussions in the various forums about microstock becoming an over-saturated market, sales dropping, people being forced out of business, etc. I agree with orchid that only time will tell what is to become of this thing, but no matter what the outcome I find it sort of funny that people are so surprised by the notion that microstock could quickly change in the coming months or years. How quickly we forget that microstock was the very thing that turned the stock business on its head not so long ago. For better or worse, this business will continue to change, and we can only wait and see what will come.

In regards to the BBC article, I just find it frustrating that this Betsy Reid is continuing to be called upon for comment in articles, and her blatant lies are taken as fact. In this case she claims to know of no photographers who are thriving in microstock, yet she has participated in forum discussions at istock about Lise. She is a fraud and it is a shame that she is considered to be an authority on all things stock related.

Batman2000 · #8 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 03:57 PM

I agree that Betsy Reid is not the person to be asked about these issues, she is quite biased.

But the article says quite a number of truths, so lets be honest with ourselves.

I am beginning to get tired of watching how sites like Dreamstime and SXP try to test the suscription market. They've gone from being sites where the proverbial $2.50 download was the norm to giving me a lot of 30 cents downloads, and that is bad for me and I guess it is bad for everyone. The trend that the market had shown towards increasing revenues for photographers is deeply affected by this.

I also consider that we have to practice our microstock business without being emotional about it. I really really disagree of providing editorial images to microstock sites, it is simply a bad business practice, since by nature these pics will get few downloads and we have to optimize earnings by seeking better paying outlets for these few downolads. But in some forums, if you say so, you are tagged as a micros basher or worst. We have to find a balance between our outlets and the content we provide. There is money to be made in RM agencies and we have to analyze the market with an open mind and without being emotional defending micros, since they have some really bad things for photographers (and a lot of good ones too).

louoates · #9 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 04:57 PM

Betsy Reid is also active in also promoting copyright protection to artists via: Picscout Photographers

She has a few good points in her discussions on microstock. As I read between the lines the basic fear the industry has is in creating a commodity called stock images. My opinion is that is exactly what has been happening over the last year or so. And will continue to do so at an accelerated pace. The subscription technique is as much a cost-cutting device as it is an attempt to hang onto a customer (ala customer-loyalty plans such as used by food stores, hardware stores, etc.)

The logical extension of current trends would be to have web sites offering FREE images to customers on web pages containing advertising. With no subscription necessary. Photographers would be paid on a small percentage of each "click through", from the ad revenue. I expect the current format of iStock and similar sites to be history within the next year or so.

ajn · #10 (**permalink**) 11-26-2007, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by louoates

The logical extension of current trends would be to have web sites offering FREE images to customers on web pages containing advertising. With no subscription necessary. Photographers would be paid on a small percentage of each "click through", from the ad revenue. I expect the current format of iStock and similar sites to be history within the next year or so.

There were some sites trying that approach already. It's even been discussed on these forums.

Microstock is getting more and more photographers because the mass numbers work. you sell thousands of images a month.

I'll NEVER go for that model. I'd rather flip burgers at McSomething or SomeKing.

About the BBC Report:

I'm always amazed how journalists refer to microstock as a place to earn a buck or two with your point and shoot or even a family photos selling place.

It's always a surprise they can't admit there are professionals doing this for a living and succeeding. Some of them doing a better job than the so called "I sell nothing for a lot of money" pro photographers.

A PRO is someone that makes a living from something. It's not necessarily a better producer. Sometimes people forget that.

Microstock is just a different business model and people have to get out of their comfort zone and make different approaches. whining is not going to sell more photos. Microstock, midstock, macrostock, vectorstock, moviestock... the world is changing and global is the way to think. Things are faster and constantly evolving. Sitting down thinking "I am so good at this, I can't be bothered" isn't the way to go...