Matt Munson, CEO of Twenty20, recently made the case for why User Generated Content (UGC) will be
The Death Of Stock Photos. He argued that “stock photos do not depict reality” and that “brands that use them risk coming off as generic and out-of-touch” with consumers.
He also said that stock photos are the antithesis of telling “meaningful stories that catch people’s attention and engage them.”
This kind of attack on stock photography is becoming more and more common, but it surprised me coming from someone who is trying to make his living operating a website that licenses stock photos. I decided to write him a letter. So far he has not responded.
Dear Mr. Munson:
I’m confused. I would like to understand how “user-generated content” (UGC) differs from “stock photos,” or at least the user-generated content Twenty20 is offering and licensing.
I presume you would agree that the people creating stock photos are creating content and are also users of content. I’ve met a lot of stock photographers and I have never met one who isn’t a “user of some type of content.”
Of course there are some stock photos that are well crafted and useful in informing the public while others are crap. The same is true, as far as I can tell, of user-generated photos. If anything, I think a greater percentage of the UGC photos, compared to those created specifically for licensing as stock, fit the latter definition rather than the former.
Does a UGC photo have to be created with a cell phone? I don’t think so, but many of them are. Does a UGC photo have to be of something that just randomly occurred in front of the photographer, or can the UGC photographer set out to find something specific to photograph?
Does a UGC photo have to be one that is created by an amateur? Part-timers or amateurs create a huge percentage of the stock photos that are currently available. These photographers earn some money from licensing rights to their images, but usually not anywhere near enough to support themselves or to be considered professionals.
Does UGC have to be free? I can understand why the clothing brand Free People, or Apple with its iPhone 6 would much prefer to get the images they use in their advertising for free rather than pay for them. And if people are willing to give those images away for free, more power to them. Some of these same people who make their images available for free might complain if someone came to their place of work and offered to do their job for free, but I won’t make that argument.
Given the way you use the terms it seems that if it’s a bad photo it is a “stock photo” and if it is a good one then it is “user generated.”
What I don’t understand is how all this fits in with the business of Twenty20. As I understand it you are in the business of licensing photos produced by image creators. You charge $10, $20 or $50 for a single photo depending on file size delivered. You also have subscription options that are effectively more expensive than those of Shutterstock or a lot of other microstock image suppliers.
It seems to me you are advocating killing your business. I don’t understand.
Maybe “user generated content” is another one of those phrases in the English language, invented in the Internet era, that has absolutely no useful definition or meaning.