John: I bet you have more experience in stock
photography than any other photographer alive. You are a founder of Comstock, A
founder of Blend Images, the founder and owner of Tetra Images. You have also
been truly generous with your knowledge and have spoken to photographers
countless times sharing your wealth of experience.
You are not just the most experienced stock shooter ever;
you are also one of the most successful and an innovator as well. Over the years
I have also been impressed with your thorough and methodical approach to
everything from cameras to sales data to shooting approach.
I know of no one else who has as broad and thorough
knowledge of the stock photography business. I am truly honored to have this
opportunity to interview you.
Can you share with us some of your experience and how that
experience might give you some unique insights into the business of stock?
Tom:
Probably the most important
aspect of my experience is that I am a stock photographer who has also spent
most of his career on the stock agency side. So I have an agency perspective of
the stock business to share as seen from a photographer’s point of view.
John: The world of stock has changed almost
incomprehensibly since you first began shooting. What do you view to be the
most significant changes and their impact on us all?
Tom:
The two most dramatic shifts in
the stock business came from an opening up of the client base due to
technological advances. The first was the advent of making duplicate
transparencies and catalog marketing. The second, and more recent, was the
advent of internet marketing. With each of these changes there was a huge jump
in the customer base. This was also caused through the increase in the use of
color imagery in advertising, which was brought about by lower printing costs
and finally internet marketing itself.
Both of
these changes increased the demand for commercial stock images, but the supply
eventually out-paced the demand as the advancing technology in cameras made it
easier to take photographs.
John: Micro Stock and crowd sourcing are the big
buzzwords right now. Can you give us your insights into Micro stock and its
long-term implications?
Tom:
Micro stock has been around long
enough to have established a permanent presence. I liken the advent of micro
stock and its impact on traditional stock as what happened when the advent of RF
had on RM when it first came upon the scene. Prices of the new product were
absurdly low and the new marketing models – RF then, micro now – are laboring in
an uphill slog to raise prices. You’d think they would have realized from the
beginning that it is always easy to lower prices, but very difficult to raise
them. Anyone who would have purchased an image for $1 would probably have
purchased it for $5 if that had been the starting price. Now the micros are
stuck in a tough task of slowly raising their prices, which is happening across
the board.
We tend to
forget that at its initial offering, RF prices were about $9.95-$19 per image.
They’ve come a long way since then to a point where the average returns from RF
and RM are almost identical.
For micro
to survive successfully it will have to raise prices substantially. Their
further success will depend upon their ability to attract a higher quality of
material. This means images with higher production value. The value cannot be
put in by photographers if they don’t receive the financial returns from their
efforts. It simply doesn’t make sense as a business model.
John: You have at least done some investigatory
participation in Micro stock, what have you learned so far and do you plan on
getting further in to Micro?
Tom:
At this point in my career I
don’t see any advantage to my getting involved much further in micro. This is
not to say it is not a profitable arena. It can be, if you understand how to
work it as an adjunct to your traditional work. I have been advising new
photographers to make micro a part of their portfolio. But I advise them to be
very mindful of the returns on their investment as it relates to their
production costs. Basically, I advise them to produce quality material first
for traditional. Then, if they have any images left over or can reproduce a
shoot script in a cheaper way, they can put into micro. This way they can
actually increase their over all RPI, which leads us to the next question… .
John: I know in the past you have been a big
proponent of tracking RPI. Is that still the case, and if so, can you share
your thinking on that?
Tom:
Keeping track of RPI is more
important now than ever as a guide line to a successful career in stock
photography. RPI’s have been in a free fall over the past two years. I doubt
that this will reverse itself anytime soon if at all. Photographers are going
to have to learn how to build their business models on lower RPI numbers. I
briefly touched on one such strategy above. I call it working towards a
“situational RPI”.
We tend to
put a lot of work into the pre-production planning of our shoots. We also tend
to produce to the same or similar scripts over time. If we have a good stock
script, we might want to shoot it two or three times using different models,
props, locations, etc. In the first shoot, we use the best of everything and
submit it to the traditional agency where we get the highest RPI. The second
time we produce the script a little more economically. This time it goes to an
agency where our RPI is solid, but less that our top agency. Finally, we shoot
the same script very cheaply, maybe using friends as a source of free models,
etc. This time it goes to a group of 6-10 micro agencies.
Let us say
for the sake of our example that our RPI with the top agency is $10 per month,
$5 per month at the second agency, and $2.50 with the micros. That means the
shooting the same script three times with decreasing expenses each time, gives
it a “situational RPI” of $17.50 per month for very little more effort and
expense.
John: I am hearing a lot of buzz about the
resurgence of Rights Managed Stock. Do you think there really is resurgence?
Are you devoting any of your production to RM?
Tom:
I do a little RM work because of
an old contract I have, but left to my own devices, I would shoot none at all.
My alternate strategy is to shoot an RM quality image for RF. This keeps my RF
RPI very high and cuts out any of the competition I would have from micro.
As for
occasionally making what I call a “lotto” sale through an RM buyout, I make
those anyway. Every year I receive several requests to for buyouts of one of my
RF images. I won’t agree to the sale unless the agency moves the image over to
RM and gives me an RM royalty rate.
John: For someone just starting out in stock would
you recommend trying to get contracts with Getty, Corbis and the like…or to move
in through Micro…or some other approach? If it is important to get a contract
with a major agency, any advice for how to accomplish that?
Tom:
I am constantly training new
photographers and always urge them to have several agencies as outlets for their
work. Today I am recommending they get a large agency (Getty, Corbis, etc.)
contract, a contract with aggregator agency like Blend or Tetra, or preferably
both. Finally, I suggest that they develop a portfolio of 6-10 micro agencies.
Micro will probably be more important in the future than it is now so they
should have a toe hold.
All this is
aimed at augmenting their situational RPI as I’ve outlined above.
John: Do you see direct sales by photographers
becoming an increasingly important piece of the puzzle…say through Google Image
search or the like?
Tom:
It takes a lot of money and
effort to begin and maintain this type of marketing. Photographers will have to
ask themselves if that same time and effort might not provide a better return by
increasing the agency outlets they already have.
John: I have always known you as someone who has
traditionally “found the holes” in stock collections and set about filling those
holes. Are there any holes left, and if so, how does one go about finding them?
Tom:
Holes are constantly coming into
existence as styles change. So images might exist on a specific topic, but the
style of imagery might be out of date. That presents an opportunity to refill a
hole brought into existence through obsolescence.
John: What are some of the traits of a great stock
photo?
A great
stock photo must address a specific concept in a commercial industry. If you
can picture who will use the photo, and what headline they might apply to it,
you are probably looking at a successful stock photo.
John: What do you see as the most common mistake
stock photographers make?
Tom:
Shooting without a plan.
A
photographer needs to know before picking up the camera, exactly
why he or she is taking the photo.
John: I once heard you say that whatever your plan
is, stick to it. Do you still feel that way?
Tom:
Yes, but that doesn’t mean
sticking to an out dated plan. We institute an annual plan at the beginning of
each year and hold a semi-annual modification meeting in June to fine tune the
plan. Plans are adapted to large changes in industry conditions that have been
observed to be true over time. You don’t want to change with every new trend.
John: What advice would you give the aspiring stock
shooter, and would you give veteran shooters different advice?
Tom:
With declining RPI’s it’s
becoming more difficult to earn a substantial living from stock photography.
Now is a good time to honestly access your talents and resources relative to
what it will take to make a go in the tougher times ahead.
John: I know you stay up on equipment. Can you
share with us some of your most essential and favorite gear?
Tom:
That’s easy: Nikon, Nikon,
Nikon, and Nikon – and by that I mean the entire Nikon professional system of
the D3, D3x, D700, and D300 in that order. I own all of them. Each camera fills
a different niche shooting area.
The D3 is
my workhorse. It has superb quality, a super fast motor at 9fps, a large image
buffer (45 images with the optional Nikon upgrade), and is perfect for capturing
fast moving subjects. I have always said that a model in motion will always
outsell a static model. The D3 enables me to keep the model in constant motion
and capture very spontaneous moments in motion that would have been lost to a
camera with a slower motor and lesser focusing system. The D3 has increased the
number of takes I get from a shoot and has probably paid for itself right there.
The D3x
with its 24mp sensor is what I use for scenic and still life. Once I saw how
good the D3x was, I sold my medium format Hasselblad. That more than paid for
the D3x.
The D700
has the same sensor as the D3 but in a much smaller body. I use it for travel
photography when I don’t want to carry a large camera with me. You can also
attach an inexpensive auxiliary battery and motor on the D700 that boosts its
speed to 8fps. That makes it a good, less expensive backup to your D3.
The D300 is
the same body as the D700 but has the smaller dx sensor. It also takes the same
auxiliary motor as the D700. The dx image multiple factor of 1.5x makes it a
good choice for animal photography. Your standard 300mm lens becomes a 450mm
and the 8fps is more than enough to capture any moving action.
The thing I
like best about Nikon is that its cameras work as a well thought out system –
each addressing a separate need. I shoot a very wide variety of subjects.
Additionally, Nikon has wisely made all of these cameras operate in similar
fashion with similar controls. So it’s very easy to switch between them. As a
result, I use all four Nikons along with one superb set of Nikon lenses.
John: Any other thoughts, advice or observations you
would like to leave us with?
Tom:
Follow the old stock market
adage of getting out when the market is high and jumping in when the market is
low. NOW – in this time of severe economic downturn -- is the time to buy
stocks in the stock market as well as pour images into the stock photo market.
Visit Tom Grill's web site:
http://www.tomgrill.com/