Chapple: Two Years in Microstock

Posted on 1/8/2009 by Jim Pickerell | Printable Version | Comments (7)

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.

Get the Full Article (1 Credit)

Have an Account?

Access to this site is an exclusive benefit for you. Enter your username and password in the form above. If you don't remember your password you can reset it at any time.

Keep me logged in

Forgot your password?

New to Selling Stock?

Selling Stock is an on-line newsletter that reports on developing trends in the stock photo industry. It is updated at least twice a month. On-line subscribers receive e-mail notification whenever new stories are posted. Archives containing stories going back to late 1995 are fully available to subscribers.

Buy Credits

Copyright © 2009 Jim Pickerell. The above article may not be copied, reproduced, excerpted or distributed in any manner without written permission from the author. All requests should be submitted to Selling Stock at 10319 Westlake Drive, Suite 162, Bethesda, MD 20817, phone 301-461-7627, e-mail: wvz@fpcubgbf.pbz

Jim Pickerell is founder of www.selling-stock.com, an online newsletter that publishes daily. He is also available for personal telephone consultations on pricing and other matters related to stock photography. He occasionally acts as an expert witness on matters related to stock photography. For his current curriculum vitae go to: http://www.jimpickerell.com/Curriculum-Vitae.aspx.

Comments

Tim Mcguire Posted Jan 8, 2009
I'd be curious to know if Ron will continue to produce imagery for microstock licensing and why or why not.

Does Ron believe these other so called "Microstock superstars" are doing something differently than he is or would he guess they are also seeing low returns when considering the considerable amount of investment, time to breakeven, and risk factors there are in the microstock production business?

I made some calculations using the figures in this article.

If you invested $600,000 in a CD account or maybe a money market account at a modest 5% for three years you'd have gained around $90,000 after 3 years. I'm not sure 5% is a good number... just a guess. Try it at 4% and think you'll come to the same conclusions I have.

Invest $600,000 in Microstock production, seemingly a very risky investment even with the experience and abilities of a long time stock professional and say you shoot for one year seeing only minimal returns. Let's say for a second and third year your sales really kick in and you make $25,000/month and you continue to shoot, investing even more money in production. It would take you 2 more years (total of 3 years) to realize a break-even point so you have your $600,000 back. Think about it, you're back to EVEN... though you could have made $90,000 by just leaving the money in the bank at a 5% interest rate. You also have to shell out more money to keep shooting because the shelf life of micro sites may not be as long as licensing models of the past. That puts you back below EVEN.

The microstock licensing model does seem to be a dead end for professional photographers who want to make a profit. It might be good for those who want to have cash flow and have fun shooting great pictures for a while before they go out of business. ;-)

It also sounds like a great business model for the micro distributors who get the lions share of the revenue from the RF model of revenue sharing... its just not good for photographers who want to make profits. But who wants to make a profit anyway ;-)

Mike Marlowe Posted Jan 8, 2009
Besides all the negative cashflow and pitiful returns of shooting stock the other major issue (IMO) with microstock, or stock in general, is the total lack of control you have over your sales channels. Chapple cites that istock revenues have declined 50% in the last 4 months probably due to changes in the search result order. In a similair vein, its becoming an art and science to get good placement on Alamy via their Alamy rank.

I predict that the next revenue stream for some of the micro agencies will be to charge for premium placement (similair to google ads) in the search order.
As if crowd sourcing wasn't crazy enough, crowd sourcing 2.0 is where your suppliers pay you to place their goods with you. It is already around with placement fees, keywording charges, storage charges and so on so it just needs to formalised into a neat little package.

I also respect the optimism of the final paragraph regarding copycatting, "diminishing as photographers realise that they only hurt themselves". One thing that keeps the whole stock industry turning is photographers willingness to hurt themselves at every possible opportunity.

Ah well, as Tim says, who wants to make a profit anyway :-) I'm in it for the fun.

Bill Brooks Posted Jan 8, 2009
Ron thanks for being honest in an industry full of hype and other things you cannot mention in a family publication.

Tim Mcguire Posted Jan 8, 2009
I'll second that. Thank you Ron Chapple for sharing your experience. If you can't make microstock production work I doubt whether many / any others can make it work with lesser resources. Thanks again.

Don Farrall Posted Jan 9, 2009
This is a good summary of what I have been feeling after investigating microstock over the past few years as well. I have looked at it, placing my initial reaction (distain), aside, to be sure I wasn't just missing the boat because my head was in the sand. Microstock just doesn't add up. As I have said here before, some will make it work OK, but for most it will be a waste of time. The revenue versus production cost factor is just way off balance. Everyone here knows what used to be possible. Traditional stock may not be very attractive to professional stock shooters anymore, but microstock does not deliver a very promising or viable alternative. I have to agree with Tim McGuire when he states if Ron Chapple (or someone of his caliber and experience) can't make it work few others will be able to make it work.

I understand the entry level - part time photographers attraction. And I understand that selling through traditional outlets was not an option they had. I understand that vector artists have found a good outlet through micorstock, call it "clipart 2.0". But when I hear the details from the top microstock producers, how much they have to cut corners, how much they have to squeeze, how little they are able invest in image production, how much work it is to upload to multiple sites, how much effort they have to spend to market themselves as a Brand, and all so that they can struggle to make anything substantial at the end of the day, I just don't get it. I have yet to be impressed by any numbers I have heard from anyone in microstock, when the whole story is told.

There are far too many images that need to be available to buyers that just can't be produced for $10 - $30, and microstock just won't support higher production values than that. If a shooter values his (her) time at all, and if there are any other expenses involved this is just too thin.

When RF came along 12 or so years ago it was shunned by RM shooters, but in a short time it proved it's self as offering an equal revenue potential, both on a per image basis, and on a per portfolio basis. And while RF did effect RM sales, it did not result in an overall industry revenue reduction. Microstock can not make this same claim.

Don Farrall
www.donfarrall.com

Jagdish Agarwal Posted Jan 9, 2009
Why only photographers, it is the agencies who have accelerated the state we are in to-day. Let me give an example.

Yesterday I was having lunch with an old client in India and this is what he said. We used to buy images, for about US$100 each, a few years ago. Then agency A entered India and started offering images for US$90 each. Then came agency B at US$80 each. Then came agency C at US$70 each. To-day we are buying images at US$2 each.

I think this says it all.

jagdish agarwal/ www.dinodia.com

Jonathan Ross Posted Jan 9, 2009
Well said Jagdish.

Something Micro might fit better for are economies where work is very slow and the cost of living is very low. Vector artists that are living in smaller regions of the worlds econmy can probably make it stick. I feel it will have a home but I do not think it is taking over the traditional state of stock. Just adding a new level that will work for some but might not work for the already established professional. People in stock that have made millions look at stock now and say why bother. New shooters coming in now seeing 90,000 a year say " WOO-HOO, and I can still surf in the afternoon ". No one answer for any one person.

Best,
Jonathan

Post Comment