Many rights-managed and traditional royalty-free production companies are having trouble finding photographers willing to shoot for them. Many of the photographers who were rights-managed and traditional royalty-free stars five to ten years ago have given up shooting stock, or at the very least dramatically cut the number of images they produce and the amount they are willing to spend production.
Some companies are offering incentives to their existing stable of photographers if they introduce a new photographer to the organization who becomes an active contributor. Others are offering their most productive shooters a higher royalty share in the hopes that they will plow the extra royalties back into producing more images—just like the old days.
Monthly royalty checks have declined to the point where many photographers feel it no longer makes economic sense to risk the upfront investment required to produce marketable images. It is hard to find anyone who will produce as many images for rights-managed and traditional royalty-free licensing as they did in 2007 or 2008. If photographers can find a subject that has no cost in terms of props or models, they might shoot it, but even that requires an investment of time.
Given the way the business seems to be headed, most photographers feel it is better to spend their time looking for ways to earn money that provide a surer guarantee of a reasonable, and more timely, return on investment.
A photographer—who most would consider to be among the most successful in the industry today—spent between $7,000 and $8,000, not counting his time, producing several shoots in June 2009. Over 300 images were accepted by his agency. Earlier this month, he received his first quarterly check for the use of those images. It was less than $1,000. At that rate, perhaps in another year or so, if prices don’t drop further, he’ll make his investment back and maybe earn a little for his time. We cannot call that “profit,” because that will really be just paying himself a minimal salary for the time invested and the use of his capital; profit should be over and above a basic living wage.
Three or four years ago, Getty Images began doing lots of wholly owned production shoots, because its contributors were not supplying imagery its data showed was in high demand. The company’s art directors planned and organized shoots and hired the most experienced and successful stock shooters to do the work. The photographers were paid a flat fee, with no royalties, for unlimited exclusive rights to their work.
After about a year, Getty abandoned the project. Rumor has it, the imagery produced did not generate enough of a return, in a reasonable time period, to offset production costs.
Getty went back to encouraging photographers to produce more and shoulder all the production expenses themselves. That did not work all that well. All this occurred before the recession hit and Getty lowered its prices by an average of 30% to 40% in order to maintain previous sales volume. This, of course, did not improve photographer royalties. Somehow, during all of this, the cost of producing images did not decline at all. Photographers who were trying to earn their entire living from producing stock images were forced to re-evaluate.
When those who had been Getty’s main source of imagery no longer contributed the volume of material the company thought it needed, Getty went looking for other sources. Viola, there was Flickr. The nice thing about most Flickr images is that the photographers are not taking pictures to earn a living. They are happy with a little money for their work, even if it does not cover cost of production. They were not expecting to get anything anyway.
Yet given the way Getty originally set up its relationship with Flickr, the Seattle company still had costs. It had to edit the work and make sure the keywording was satisfactory. That may have been too costly given the return from sales, so the next step was to eliminate the costs of editing and keywording, and let Flickr host the images. All a Flickr photographer has to do now is put a notice alongside his or her Flickr images that basically says, “if you are interested in buying this image, call Getty.”
Brick walls
Many readers will dislike this story because it is so negative. It is one thing to tenaciously stick to your principles and the way you have always done things, but it is another to recognize when you are facing a brick wall. I am not saying everyone should give up; I do not believe in no-win scenarios. But when you’re facing a brick wall, rather than banging your head against it in continual frustration, it may be better to look for a way around it that will allow you to achieve most of what you want and be happy.
Here are a few questions that may help in finding a new path:
- Do you want the security of a staff position?
- Do you want the flexibility of a freelancer?
- Do you enjoy most of the non-photographic things that are involved in managing and operating a business?
- Do you want to take pictures of what you want, when you want?
- Do you care what the subject is as long as you’re taking pictures and satisfying a customer’s need for reasonable compensation?
- Do you like solving the technical problems that arise when you’re asked to photograph something you’ve never done before?
- Is there a particular subject you want to photograph? Are you really more interested in the subject than taking photographs?
- Do you enjoy working with computers?
- Do you enjoy meeting new people? Are you good in social situations?
- Do you love dealing with brides?
- Do you want to the maximum revenue you can earn for a minimum amount of work?
- Do you want more time with your family?
- Do you want a comfortable retirement?
- Do you want to retire young?
- Do you want to be recognized by your peers as a great photographer?
- Is it more important to be recognized as a great photographer or artist than to earn money from your efforts?
Brick walls are there for a reason. They show us how bad we want something.