Microstock
Those selling images to big business at traditional prices must develop a different strategy for addressing the B2SB (small business) market. The strategy needs to embrace the idea of pricing based on value received, so big businesses that receive greater value from the images they purchase continue to pay reasonable fees for that value.
Leaving out iStock shooters that prefer to remain anonymous, 124 of the 150 top iStock contributors licensed 431,708 combined gross units in March. This number dropped to 380,934 in April and went slightly up to 387,500 in May. These totals suggest that iStock sales may have reached a plateau, but several more months of data is needed to help determine the level and why.
The chart in this story provides details of the number of image downloads in the last three months of images belonging to 124 of iStockphoto's most productive contributors. Based on the statistics supplied by
istockcharts, I have tracked sales for the last three months of the top 150 producers. Of the 150, twenty-six have asked to remain anonymous, so it was only possible to see specific figures for 124 contributors. The combined gross units licensed in March by this group was 431,708. That dropped to 380,934 in April and was 387,500 in May.
The Long Tail describes a new way of looking at, and approaching, markets in the Web 2.0 environment. The term was first coined by Chris Anderson in a Wired magazine article in October 2004. It is illustrative of the business strategy of Internet companies like Amazon.com and Netflix which sell a large number of unique items, each in relatively small quantities, to a very large base of customers. This buying pattern creates what is called a "power law distribution curve" or long tail.
The second insight came as I was reading the business section of the
Washington Post and noticed that a photo used as part of the lead
illustration was credited to iStockphoto. This got me thinking. In the
past I’ve seen a lot of photos in the Post credited to Photodisc. Now
we may be seeing the beginning of a move from the more pricey Photodisc
images to those of iStockphoto.
Recently, I wrote an article comparing the advantages and disadvantages of various marketing strategies. I suggested that in terms of the number of images licensed for commercial uses "rights-managed licenses account for 3% of the total number of annual licenses. Traditional royalty-free images make up 6%; 20% goes to subscription services and 71% to microstock.”
How long will it take before traditional prices drop to microstock levels? If Alamy's sales are any indication, microstock sellers might not be cannibalizing traditional sales in terms of number of units licensed, but they certainly are cannibalizing revenue as traditional sellers fight to compete.
Leading iStockphoto contributors saw their sales drop by almost 9% in April compared to March, according to our analysis of the numbers available through iStockcharts. To some extent, this might be explained by a loss of one business day to Easter.
In 2006 I examined many of the factors that are impacting on stock photo market and leading to price declines. There were also a number of factors leading to declining sales volumes to traditional customers. These include the general demand for printed products, the tendency to use images multiple times but only pay once, trends in book publishing, postage costs, crowdsourcing of images and various types of guerrilla advertising. Since that time the situation has become worse.
Traditional photographers argue that it is impossible to make money by licensing their images at microstock prices. They say volumes will never make up the difference. Despite that argument, Getty Images is licensing more and more images at Premium Access prices, which are not all that far away from what microstock sellers charge. Getty's volumes are not making up the difference for traditional photographers, but that is because Getty is selling these images to volume customers who used to pay traditional prices---not reaching the new customer base that microstock addresses.
Selling Stock recently analyzed some iStockcharts data in an effort to assess iStockphoto’s revenues during the first two months of 2009 and predict the possible effects of recession on microstock. Though the original analysis suggested a decline in iStock sales, new information about iStockcharts makes this a questionable conclusion.
Photographers frequently ask how royalty-free still photography got started and why creators only receive 20% of royalty free sales. Here is a little history.
Leading traditional and microstock photographers and agency owners share their views on selling the same images at different prices.
The industry needs a new pricing model. The models we have include rights-managed, royalty-free, subscription, microstock and rights-ready, which is about to become extinct. What is needed is use-based pricing, or UBP.
Stock photography producers and sellers have lost sight of how to value their images. It is time for all sellers to reevaluate their pricing strategies.
Many traditional stock photographers question whether it will ever be possible to earn enough money from microstock production to justify the effort. Ron Chapple's experience is instructive.
There are countless stories about what best-selling stock photographers earn. However, the earnings of photographers a little farther down the food chain are more germane. It is useful to consider the likely earnings of the 50 most successful contributors to Getty Images' creative collections (rights-managed and royalty-free) and compare these figures with iStockphoto's 50 most successful photographers, paying particular attention to the probable earnings of the 50th photographer on the list.
The following is a list of the 50 iStockphoto contributors with the most career downloads and thus the highest earning as of the end of 2008. Non-microstock photographers may use this list, and the links provided, to learn a little more about microstock’s potential.
The first thing a photographer must consider when pondering microstock exclusivity is why any distributor needs exclusive representation of a royalty-free image—which, but its very nature, is a non-exclusive product.
Stock photographers are constantly concerned with what to shoot. Everyone knows that people pictures tend to sell in greater volume than non-people pictures, but people doing what? Which concepts are in greatest demand? Information most helpful to answering such questions comes from microstock sites and is freely available to everyone.
The following are concept words that customers often use to find images. When keywording an image add as many concepts as are appropriate to the keyword list. If after searching the concept list you cannot find any words that that fit your image there is a good chance your images will not be a frequent seller. When planning shoots try to take pictures that will illustrate some of these concepts.
This article defines the six most common methods for licensing stock images. They are: RM, RR, MRR, RF, Subscription and Microstock.
It seems that every amateur who's made a few bucks selling microstock writes a blog extolling the virtues of microstock and encouraging other amateurs to try selling their images. I've got no problem with them telling their stories. But in their enthusiasm to encourage others, they often put out inaccurate information about the effects microstock is having on those trying to make a living shooting stock images.
Companies that previously specialized in royalty-free licensing are now asking photographers to offer their new production as rights-managed content. Photographers are questioning whether or not this is a wise idea. Photographers worry that customers will not go to RF companies to buy RM--and if they do, they may not be willing to pay RM prices.
In 2007 I proposed a pricing strategy that combines the rights managed
theory of pricing based on usage and the simplicity of microstock and
its ability to license rights for very small uses for fees of a few
dollars. The system is described in a 12 page booklet. I call the
strategy Modified Right Ready.