Hot Stuff
CreativePro.com Podcast
Don't miss it! Updated every Monday.
Win Art Parts CD-RON 7 & Web Parts!
1 winner selected
The Big Picture Magazine - FREE
Real-world solutions to design challenges
Comments
Login
Login to post a comment. Not a member? Sign up here
Forgot your password?
Microstock Agencies
I'm one of the hybrids who began shooting things for my design clients many years ago when I couldn't find it in the traditional agency stock houses, especially at the trad agency price points. Who wanted to pay $250. for a shot of an electrical outlet?
When "desktop publishing" and the Mac blew the industry wide open, designers unwittingly feared for their livlihoods, but it revolutionized design and the market for professional design didn't dry up. Photography lagged behind in technology, but digital is changing that. Both are visual businesses, but talent is talent. The established photographers will still find a demand for their product. True, the gap is very wide in price points between microstocks and traditional agencies but niches are being filled on both ends. The middle price point is still wide open and a small price increase in microstock has yet to come close to straddle the middle ground.
So my $25,000 collection of RF CDs from the agencies has been collecting dust. If I needed to buy an image from one of the traditional agencies I would. There is obviously a market for microstock or it wouldn't have continued to grow at such an exponential rate. Many designers found themselves with a budget dilemma and a digital camera in their hands. For others, microstock was a great resource.
It isn't about age (I have a 31 year career as a pro designer), it's about forward thinking and change. That will happen whether you decide to ride or not.
It's a 50/50 thing
Before the photographers started getting the shaft, we designers were (being shafted) by everyone and their "executive assistants" who were handed the dreaded microsoft publisher and told to create something pretty. I miss the days of commissioning photographs (and illustrations) for every job that I worked on, or buying from Tony Stone Images, when I can, I do. But, even the clients know about iStock and some ask for me to look there first for images. Sometimes I know that an image will enhance the job that I am working on and the client does not have it in their budget to spend more, and I opt for these images.
Microstock photos
As a designer with 15 years of experience, I can certainly understand the frustration of highly qualified professional photographers who feel their business slipping away at the hands of photo agencies relying largely on amateurs to supply their image products. These days I find myself competing with every soccer mom and t-shirt shop in the area for logos and other design projects. The soccer moms and recent grads can undercut my prices because they're doing it as a hobby or only really need beer money. The t-shirt shops can charge a mere $150 for a "logo" because they're going to make the bulk of their money selling the shirts. The result is lots of crappy logos that don't serve the myriad needs required of a professional identity system. But, the clients really cannot tell the difference between the service provided by the amateurs and the service I provide until they see the final results. Creative professionals are seeing their careers compromised by the empowering of amateurs in this digital age, there's no getting around it. But I, too, have made frequent use of Istock for the same reason most others do. Most of my clients have minimal funds allocated to marketing. There's no way I can sell the client on a single photo that costs as much as the printing for 5000 brochures. If not for Istock, the only photos I'd be designing with would be those I took myself.
There is room for all business models
As a publisher, I do not want random images, I need strict relevance. iStock rarely has the kind of image which offers editorial relevance, the bulk of contributions copy the style of what Corbis called 'Bizpix' two or three years ago, and what used to appear - predictably - on RF CDs and the first stock websites. Some of the photography is excellent and breaks that mould. Getty is creaming it off by offering those iStockers an upgrade to different 'Rights Ready' areas of the Getty org, where their images command fees in the tens to low three-figure prices for non-time-limited, non-use-limited download.
I am a magazine publisher, a past ad design and PR agency owner, and a professional photographer - qualified in journalism in 1974, and in photography in 1979, both by industry not college routes. The gap between 1974 and 1979 was when I was outlawed from journalism for daring to use a camera (union demarcation) and had to go freelance, but was unable to join a professional photographic body as I was also a journalist and thus not full-time. All that nonsense is behind us. The arrival of microstock is a similar scene - a change. We are in the middle of it now. I don't buy microstock stuff as generally it makes me laugh, it's too obvious. But the same goes for some high RM stock as well!
I do sell stock through Alamy, and I might well make more overall through iStockphoto, but I would rather sell 10 uses with bylines in national newspapers, ad campaigns and books for $2000 than 10,000 anonymous uses for $2000.
David
Another race to the bottom?
This forum on microstock raises a lot of issues common to all creatives. As a designer with 15 years of experience, I can certainly understand the frustration of highly qualified professional photographers who feel their business slipping away at the hands of photo agencies relying largely on amateurs to supply their image products. But it's not just photographers feeling the pinch. These days I find myself competing with every soccer mom, t-shirt shop and designer wannabe with a copy of PhotoShop or CorelDraw.
The result is lots of crappy logos and other design that don't serve the clients' needs, and a constant struggle on the part of professional designers or photographers to justify our prices to potential clients. The problem is that the clients really cannot tell the difference between what is provided by the amateurs and the services provided by professionals like myself until they see the final results. To be honest, I can see it from the client's perspective. Last week the client talked with someone who claimed to be a designer and was quoted a low-ball price. I can't fault the client for wondering if my work is really going to be $750 better than the work that will be provided by the "designer" he talked with last week.
Often, an expert is someone who simply knows 5% more than you do about a given topic. But, if a client knows nothing about logo design, then a "designer" who knows 5% more than the client still doesn't know enough to do a competent job. I can't tell you the number of times I've talked to people who think they've bought a logo, when what they've really purchased is a web-quality graphic or t-shirt artwork, and it won't work in print, or small on a business card, or big on a billboard, or in b&w in a newspaper ad, etc. Just a short distance from my office is a multi-million dollar waterfront condo development that was sold an unchanged piece of CorelDraw clipart as a logo. They think they bought a logo, but I know their "logo" is a piece of clipart that has been used by thousands of other people.
Many creative professionals, particularly the small shops with smaller or medium-sized clients, are seeing their careers compromised by the empowering of amateurs in this digital age, there's no getting around it. The software manufacturers contribute to the problem with their insistent "you can do it yourself" marketing campaigns. I feel for the professional photographers, but they're coming late to an issue that designers and illustrators have been struggling with for years. I must admit that I, too, have made frequent use of Istock for the same reason most others do. Many of my clients have minimal funds allocated to marketing. There's no way I can sell the client on a single photo that costs as much as the total printing bill for 5000 brochures. If not for Istock, the only photos I'd be designing with would be those I took myself. I'm now able to routinely design with photography for the first time since I left the corporate world. And it's wonderful.
I'm not sure what the answer is. In many ways, it seems like we're in a race to the bottom. The trend in the design business, and apparently photography now too, seems to be that creatives are working harder and harder to make the same money, and a person can only do that for so long. Personally, I'm looking into ways to re-purpose my skill set and begin slowly transitioning away from serving clients.
Micro Stock: A Dream and a Nightmare
From "designer's dirty little secret" to "professional photographer's nightmare", microstock has come a long way in a very short time. This can be scary as a traditional stock photographer but it was inevitable for this new price-point to pop up ...much like when Royalty Free put the whammy on Rights Managed. Still, we survived by making our RM pictures better or by mastering the quality vs. quantity of RF. Photographers must again raise the bar if they want longevity from RM & RF sales. However, the trouble is that most stock photographers can't produce a quality shoot with good models, crew, styling, etc... and expect to profit in microstock at the current revenue per image. Even with royalties from a great shoot online at the big agencies, it takes a year just to pay expenses with hopes to profit in the next. By year 3, the photographs have started their decline as they submerge below the flood of new images. In microstock, the numbers of images entering the market is staggeringly higher. As it becomes harder to find imagery, I only hope agencies will put less emphasis on quantity and more on simply having "the right images" in the collection.
Yes, microstock fills a 'sad but true' need in the advertising industry. As I've read in many of the posts, microstock images are filling holes where before the designer would have declined the job or not used imagery at all. These designers are finding a new life and as they become more successful, their budgets will rise, clients get bigger, and they will be able to partake in other licensing models ...helping the industry grow as a whole.
It benefits the entire industry for microstock to slowly go through a few more price increases and hopefully they can raise the photographer royalties as well. Photographers and designers alike don't want clients to get too accustom to low budgets. The creative process must be respected.
Micropayments are a great benefit for designers AND photographer
I'm always a little miffed after buying a bunch of credits on iStockPhoto's site, only to have them raise their charges. But after bruising my fist on my desk and pouring another cup of coffee, it's important to consider this issue with a little perspective:
I work as art director for a magazine. We have a small staff of three (an editor, a circulation manager, and myself), so I serve both as the designer and as photo editor. Currently, I have over 350 professional and commercial photographers who respond to my photo calls and send in bi-monthly submissions for consideration. I do my best to pay them fairly for each image (we're a state agency, non-profit publication, so payments range from $80 to $300 per image).
Since our magazine is very issue-oriented and journalistic in nature, I don't always get in just the right image from our photographers, and so I find myself browsing the thumbnails of iStockPhoto to supplement. In iStockPhoto world, I'm finding photographers (some of them outstanding artists) who are willing to share their images for literally pennies, and I view their passion and their generosity as a great service and asset to the visual design world.
In my previous job, I remember spending $300 to $500 for a 100-image photodisc, and feeling lucky if I was able to use five of those images on a project. So from an end-user perspective, iStockPhoto is a great blessing to graphic artists, especially those with limited budgets.
I like to support local businesses, and shop with companies who are progressive, responsible, and good to their employees. The fact that iStockPhoto is incrementally increasing value and payments to their contributors is the right thing to do, and makes them a good company to do business with, in my book.
Micropayment stock sites are not taking away business from the commercial photographers I work with. I'm still willing to pay them fairly, and keep them in business. The stock sites are simply another resource when I don't get what I'm looking for from my photographer pool.
Are micropayment stock sites the spawn of satan? Hell no. So I have to pay a little more for images every once in a while. It's still just pennies, and the value I receive from these businesses is well worth the bruised fist.