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. Dan Feildman’s Lee Torrens' recent post, “How To Make Money From Your Photography (Microstock),†is a good example. (Updated August 24.)
Feildman makes his living as a Web developer, and his wife is a graphic designer. For them, photography is a hobby. Over two years ago, they started shooting microstock and made $16 in the first month. Now, their monthly income is over $600. They’re having fun, paying for their equipment and learning something. Good for them.
Feildman’s post describes microstock as controversial, adding: “Many professional photographers have strong feelings about the impact microstock is having on the industry.†Then he goes on to say:
“Many of the world’s most successful stock photographers [are] not noticing any impacts on their business from microstock. … Their photos compete on quality and not price [and] there will always be buyers interested in the top level of the market, regardless of price.
“It also makes sense to assume that the hundreds of photographers who now earn a living with microstock have displaced some ‘traditional’ stock photographers. This is a natural phenomenon and happens with any technological change as big as the Internet and digital photography; it’s completely understandable that those on the receiving end are not happy about it.â€
Here’s my response.
Please don’t try to argue that microstock won’t have a severe impact on professional photographers. For every professional photographer who says microstock has not hurt his business, several top pros will say it is severely affecting theirs. It may not be that bad—yet—for those shooting rights-managed images, but the effect on royalty-free shooters has been quite significant.
One example is a photographer who placed a collection of about 800 images with a major RF seller about 18 months ago. For a while, it earned $7,500 a month in commissions, but now sales are down 42% to $4,300 and are dropping by 10% monthly.
On an industry-wide scale, the most telling negative statistics are those of Getty Images, the largest stock business in the world. Getty’s 2007 sales of RM and RF images totaled $560 million, not including $72 million of microstock sales by iStockphoto, which Getty owns. In 2008, Getty expects traditional sales to be $100 million less. iStock sales are expected to rise to $122 million this year, leaving a $50-million loss for the industry.
In addition, this is only the beginning. By 2012, Getty expects combined RM and RF revenues to be down to $348 million.
The problem is not with the huge number of small-business customers and bloggers who could never afford to pay traditional rates for images. It is great that now they can get the images they need at prices they can afford. The problem for professionals is that so many of their traditional customers—magazines, book publishers, large corporations and major advertising agencies—are able to purchase many of the images they need for $5 or $10, instead of paying traditional prices for their use.
You argue that professional quality will always command higher prices, but many of the images being sold for microstock prices are, in my opinion as a professional stock photographer with decades of experience, equal in quality to those being produced by professionals. Once a customer finds an image that works for his project, he won’t insist on paying more than the seller asks—or paying more because the image is of high quality.
In this situation, not only do professionals lose, but microstock photographers producing quality images also lose. However, there is a win-win solution for everyone. We’ll discuss it tomorrow.