[Darrell Young]

http://www.ellenboug...bal-positioning

Your comments...

[DHill]

I guess that depends a lot on which segment of the market for stock you're looking at ;-)

The side of the market I know best (factual books, including text books, which I know from two sides -- writing and photography) doesn't seem to be changing radically in terms of content. We all know about the move towards electronic media, but I suspect there's also a trend towards more visual appeal -- which means more photographs. I think that's a very long-term trend though, that's been going on for years. And I suspect budgets aren't really increasing -- more is wanted for less (as Ellen suggests). Publishers do seem to be aware of the existence of microstock editorial, but I wonder how long before people supplying microstock realise that you need hundreds of sales to make anything at all, and that editorial just doesn't have that potential.

I don't know much about Ellen, but I suspect she doesn't waste her time thinking about that particular branch of editorial. Too little money. I suspect the article is more about commercial.

As for commercial photography: that's so fadish that it's *continually* changing, isn't it?

[Betty LaRue]

I can't really speak to this since I'm such a newcomer. All I know is my sales are ramping up as my collection grows.
I think as long as we pay very particular care in what we shoot and how we develop the images, we'll make sales.

Will I make a living at it? I doubt it. I'd love that, but I may have to settle for selling enough to help pay for the cameras I will buy regardless. If I'd got into this 15 years ago, I may have grubbed out a small living for a while.

If you really think about it, digital is what's killing photographers' stock earnings. Everybody owns a camera and thinks he/she can make money at it, pushing the sales of professionals down. And digital isn't going away.
Betty

[Fabrizio]

I suspect that those who will have some chance of success in stock photography in the future will be those who think about producing good stock images, and finding some good agencies to sell them, and nothing else.

Those who complain about how unfair is the world toward them, and about how there are too many photographers who steal "their" work out of them with "unfair" commercial practices, and who regret the snow of yesteryear, and who try to "educate" the photographic world to raise prices, and who construe theories about how different will the market be tomorrow (everybody shooting film, or making 3D animations, and only producing for handheld devices, and learning Chinese because that is where the money is going to be...) they will be those who will have more probabilities to (photographically) perish.

Cheers
Fabrizio

[Thomas R. Fletcher]

Fabrizio, on 08 March 2010 - 07:12 PM, said:

I suspect that those who will have some chance of success in stock photography in the future will be those who think about producing good stock images, and finding some good agencies to sell them, and nothing else.

Those who complain about how unfair is the world toward them, and about how there are too many photographers who steal "their" work out of them with "unfair" commercial practices, and who regret the snow of yesteryear, and who try to "educate" the photographic world to raise prices, and who construe theories about how different will the market be tomorrow (everybody shooting film, or making 3D animations, and only producing for handheld devices, and learning Chinese because that is where the money is going to be...) they will be those who will have more probabilities to (photographically) perish.

Cheers
Fabrizio

So, you don't think professional photographers should do all they can to maintain higher prices--and educate those willing to give their work away against the fallacies of doing so; that those concerned for such will "perish"? Ludicrous.

It is those willing to sell via microstock, those willing to take less for their work than it is worth, those that do not value their own work who will "perish (photographically)." They just might take the rest of the market with them.

Sorry Fabrizio, but I completely disagree with your flawed thinking. The low-ballers, those that undercut others to make a sale hurt the entire market and will eventually work themselves out of business--if they were ever in business to start with. Those poor myopic folks that can't see beyond making a sale or seeing their name in print, willing to take a pittance--those are the scourge of the business.

Is stock changing? Yes, the market has always been--somewhat--in a state of flux. I still believe the cream will rise to the top.

This post has been edited by Thomas R. Fletcher: 09 March 2010 - 04:42 AM

[Edo]

Ni hao ma, Fabrizio.

There was/is an exhibit of the work of Peter Beard on Broome Street in NYC's SoHo neighborhood not far from me. I have not noticed it in a long time. Perhaps it has been moved to a higher floor in the building?

Anyway, the title of the presentation is philosophical and seems to fit the subject under discussion here:

The Time is Always Now

This post has been edited by Edo: 10 March 2010 - 10:35 AM

[geoffpix]

Trying to work out how stock will evolve, what devices or media will use it in the future is virtually impossible, I'm still awaiting the delivery of the robot housekeeper/cleaner/gardener that I was promised in every science programme some twenty odd years ago.

Most of the issues I see in stock are around the disconnect between cost of production and the price points being applied. With RM there is often little correlation between our costs and client costs, too easy to justify high costs of an EULA by basing it on what the client might get out of the deal. Yes there should be some 'added value' to their usage but if that's it on a gross scale which it is for many, it's part of what's been the problem for clients.

Then we have the other disconnect at the micro or crowd-sourced end of the business where production costs are ignored by many in order to equate the low price points with running a p/t business, especially so in micro subscription schemes. Yuri's admission shows that those who played the system to to maximum cannot now seemingly give their business some longevity.

This is why the amateur/hobbyist will accept whatever they get because there is no sense of a business being run so the normal rules don't apply. For much of stock they will be the main suppliers into the future.

I suspect there will be corrections to this, just as some people can still get very large assignment payments whilst others scramble for the crumbs.

Can I justify the $3500 I got for an image which in material costs was 99p, even with my ongoing CODB, not so sure. Equally making 50 subscription sales for it at a micro wouldn't make sense either.

I guess we will just have to wait and see.

This post has been edited by geoffpix: 09 March 2010 - 03:16 AM

[Dave]

Edo thanks for the great quote.

Fabrizio when someone produces "good stock" and then sees the almost exact same thing selling at microstock agencies shortly afterwards it is very lousy feeling. If and when it ever happens to you, you might be able to relate and understand.

Dave

[Darrell Young]

Adding to this discussion is a blog by John Lund here:

http://www.johnlund....d-of-stock.html

[Betty LaRue]

Quote

People who want to sell to the education market will have to find a way to sell quality work to individual teachers and school systems at very low prices and hope that volume will make up the difference.

There goes my textbook sales!

[Thomas R. Fletcher]

"The requests have included, “the right to publish the picture in an unlimited numbers of electronic uses on the Internet, or in any other electronic product now in existence or yet to be invented, for 10 years from the date of invoice.”"

Right there is a reason it is important to "educate" people against signing away all rights to their images. Join a group like TOPA, Editorial Photographers, ASMP or some other group that stands for photographers' rights.


I have been fighting such contractual terms in these "rights grabbing contracts" for the last 10 or 12 years. I have lost several markets because of my refusal to sign such agreements--even though some editors tried the old, "oh don't worry about it, it doesn't mean anything." IT DOES means something, it MEANS WHAT IT SAYS. Once you sign away those rights they are gone. I'm quite handy with a Sharpy as I cross out such offending terms, limiting usage to "one time usage rights." Which, in most cases is all the client really needs.

Problem is the word didn't get out or sink into the heads of enough photographers and agents. Too many signed on and now such contracts are EXPECTED. Our agencies sell these rights daily--cutting their own throats as well as ours. In reality, each and every usage should be priced separately and charged accordingly.

I greatly respect Jim Pickerell. I have used his "Negotiating Stock Photo Prices" for years (before FotoQuote came along--and still have a copy). No one person has all the answers and no one can predict exactly how it will all fall out. One thing I do know, you own the rights to your work--and the earning potential of those rights--if you don't give them away, or sell them for a pittance.

[Fabrizio]

Thomas, I think you should wake up to the reality of free market, free economy, free competition.

I don't know if bakery owners, in baker owners' forum, discuss how immoral it is for some other bakers to sell bread at prices below what they would like. All their attempt to "educate" their competitors to adopt a collusive anti-competitive behaviour would not just be totally ineffective but also, in my point of view, pretty much immoral. Besides, it would be punishable in many countries. Free market means free competition as a normal, decent, and moral way to exist in the market. The strong shall thrive and the weak shall perish or, well, find another occupation.

I perfectly know the other argument, the one about the rich immoral dentist who has another source of income and produces images "under cost" thus depriving the poor professional photographer of the possibility of nourishing his own children. You see plenty of those reasonings around photographic forum. You know, "I wish my plumber would repair my tap for free" and this kind of stuff. Well, I find this reasoning pathetic by somebody who pretends being a professional photographer.

Wherever you go in pubs you see amateurs singers performing basically for free, and wherever you go in churches you see amateur choirs singing again for free. I have never heard of professional musicians complaining about amateurs singers being "immoral" because they sell their performances for a beer and thus devalue the work of the singing community etc. etc. They don't say those things because they know that it would just be ridiculous to say so.

If you are a professional singer, you are one because you can provide a much better singing performance than what the average dentist can. If anybody who has a mouth can sing (this costs less than a digital camera), than it goes without saying that professional singers must find a space in a market where plenty of "immoral" singers sing just for the pleasure of doing so. You can apply this to painting, to music playing and to any other activity that people do as a hobby. Some professional photographers are discovering today what professional singers have discovered some centuries ago.

Photography, just like music, is a hobby, and hobbyist are all around. If you want to be a professional in a market occupied by hobbyist, you should be much better than hobbyist, rather than trying to "educate" them to raise their prices.

I agree that some of the persons who sell their images as microstock are basically giving away their work. My point is: your effort to "educate" them not to give pictures for free is not going to be more successful, nor less ridiculous, than the effort of a singer who is trying to "educate" young choirists not to sing for free.

So Thomas I agree that the cream comes to the top. They are professional because they come to the top, not because they rely on other people's behaviour.

Having worked in a real competitive market (as programmer, as translator) I know what it means to have to come on top without trying to "educate" competitors to raise their prices.

Cheers
Fabrizio

PS All this is an old story continuously repeating itself. I can image all the complaints by professional studio photographers of the 1920-1930s when the "popular" portable cameras came into existence and people stopped bringing their children to the photographic studio.

When 35mm reflex became affordable and begun to replace medium format in many photographic needs, I suspect many professionals who worked with expensive MF gear would complain about how any mum and dad would menace their living by using a Nikon that anybody can afford.

When Alamy and all the Alamy-clones begun their activity, I suspect many people would complain that this non-exclusive licensing model would have destroyed the market and photography as-we-know-it.

Enters digital, and suddenly we have a problem with so many pictures produced. Oh my God, that must mean the end of professional photography as we know it! Anybody can buy a camera and learn fast how to make good pictures.

When royalty-free arrived, that's many years ago, certainly there were many who would try to "educate" people not to sell RF because, you see, they were giving their work away and, what is worse, they were a menace to everybody.

Now we have microstock and again you see people complaining about other people's behaviours.

At every of those stages, there were people who would thrive, and make money out of their skills. And there were people who would complain and depict tragic pictures of income destruction and hungry children, and try to "fight" reality by "educating" a world which will never listen to them anyway.

re-cheers
Fabrizio

[Marianne]

We can bemoan the fact that crowd-sourcing has raised the public's tolerance for mediocre photography, but let's face it, there was always a place for those who were neither Henri Cartier-Bresson nor Ansel Adams--otherwise photography as a profession would have died a long time ago.

Sure, digital cameras make taking photos easier, but photographers are not the only ones who realize that it is the eye of the photographer and not her equipment that ultimately makes the difference.

A couple years back a new client came to me at the recommendation of one of my editors, after realizing that hiring a professional in the first instance would have saved him money. A builder with an eye for design, he'd spent a few thousand dollars on camera equipment because he wanted to upgrade the photos on his website. He explained that he learned his lesson the hard way when he realized that having the best camera was not the solution-hiring me was.

In fact, I have several website clients who started out taking their own photos and became my clients when they were ready for their websites to look professional. These are small business owners--not folks with huge budgets--but they appreciate the difference--sometimes through trial and error--between the photos I can shoot for them and those they shoot themselves--no matter how expensive their equipment.

When you think about it, even those buying microstock are buying photos--not shooting it themselves.

I love the freedom of shooting stock but I also enjoy working directly with clients--seeing their faces light up when they look at the photos that I have made for them. So, for me stock photography will always be just a piece of the puzzle (someday, I hope, a lucrative piece). To be fair, as I only started shooting stock in mid-2008, crowd sourcing at Alamy and at Photoshelter (in it's earlier incarnation) gave me a foot in the door, so the changes in the industry have not been all bad for me personally

Of course, I appreciate the advice and concerns of those with far more experience--but I think even for those people it's hard to assess how much of their income is being affected by the changes in the stock photography market--and how much by the economy and the changes in overall communications themselves. For those of us in early middle age, they say we'll average 6 to 8 careers in our lives--(I'm on number 2 (writing) and 3 (photography) myself)--so the best thing we can all do is love learning new things and be willing to adapt. Most of us made the switch from film to digital--I'm confident that we'll handle future changes as well.

Videographer career #4?

This post has been edited by Marianne: 10 March 2010 - 02:26 AM

[Thomas R. Fletcher]

Fabrizio, on 09 March 2010 - 01:09 PM, said:

Thomas, I think you should wake up to the reality of free market, free economy, free competition.

I don't know if bakery owners, in baker owners' forum, discuss how immoral it is for some other bakers to sell bread at prices below what they would like. All their attempt to "educate" their competitors to adopt a collusive anti-competitive behaviour would not just be totally ineffective but also, in my point of view, pretty much immoral. Besides, it would be punishable in many countries. Free market means free competition as a normal, decent, and moral way to exist in the market. The strong shall thrive and the weak shall perish or, well, find another occupation.

I perfectly know the other argument, the one about the rich immoral dentist who has another source of income and produces images "under cost" thus depriving the poor professional photographer of the possibility of nourishing his own children. You see plenty of those reasonings around photographic forum. You know, "I wish my plumber would repair my tap for free" and this kind of stuff. Well, I find this reasoning pathetic by somebody who pretends being a professional photographer.

Wherever you go in pubs you see amateurs singers performing basically for free, and wherever you go in churches you see amateur choirs singing again for free. I have never heard of professional musicians complaining about amateurs singers being "immoral" because they sell their performances for a beer and thus devalue the work of the singing community etc. etc. They don't say those things because they know that it would just be ridiculous to say so.

If you are a professional singer, you are one because you can provide a much better singing performance than what the average dentist can. If anybody who has a mouth can sing (this costs less than a digital camera), than it goes without saying that professional singers must find a space in a market where plenty of "immoral" singers sing just for the pleasure of doing so. You can apply this to painting, to music playing and to any other activity that people do as a hobby. Some professional photographers are discovering today what professional singers have discovered some centuries ago.

Photography, just like music, is a hobby, and hobbyist are all around. If you want to be a professional in a market occupied by hobbyist, you should be much better than hobbyist, rather than trying to "educate" them to raise their prices.

I agree that some of the persons who sell their images as microstock are basically giving away their work. My point is: your effort to "educate" them not to give pictures for free is not going to be more successful, nor less ridiculous, than the effort of a singer who is trying to "educate" young choirists not to sing for free.

So Thomas I agree that the cream comes to the top. They are professional because they come to the top, not because they rely on other people's behaviour.

Having worked in a real competitive market (as programmer, as translator) I know what it means to have to come on top without trying to "educate" competitors to raise their prices.

Cheers
Fabrizio

PS All this is an old story continuously repeating itself. I can image all the complaints by professional studio photographers of the 1920-1930s when the "popular" portable cameras came into existence and people stopped bringing their children to the photographic studio.

When 35mm reflex became affordable and begun to replace medium format in many photographic needs, I suspect many professionals who worked with expensive MF gear would complain about how any mum and dad would menace their living by using a Nikon that anybody can afford.

When Alamy and all the Alamy-clones begun their activity, I suspect many people would complain that this non-exclusive licensing model would have destroyed the market and photography as-we-know-it.

Enters digital, and suddenly we have a problem with so many pictures produced. Oh my God, that must mean the end of professional photography as we know it! Anybody can buy a camera and learn fast how to make good pictures.

When royalty-free arrived, that's many years ago, certainly there were many who would try to "educate" people not to sell RF because, you see, they were giving their work away and, what is worse, they were a menace to everybody.

Now we have microstock and again you see people complaining about other people's behaviours.

At every of those stages, there were people who would thrive, and make money out of their skills. And there were people who would complain and depict tragic pictures of income destruction and hungry children, and try to "fight" reality by "educating" a world which will never listen to them anyway.

re-cheers
Fabrizio

Fabrizio, dude, please--I don't need a person that thinks the moon landing was faked lecturing me on a free market economy. Get real.

[Thomas R. Fletcher]

We often hear clients touting the prices for which they can get microstock images, or how royalty free images allow them unlimited usage.

Well, here's a case for those clients really thinking about what they are really getting. The writer makes an excellent case for traditional RM (Rights Managed) stock.

http://fairtradephot...le-company.html

I am and will remain a Rights Managed photographer.

This post has been edited by Thomas R. Fletcher: 12 March 2010 - 05:40 AM

[Fabrizio]

Thomas R. Fletcher, on 11 March 2010 - 11:51 AM, said:

Fabrizio, dude, please--I don't need a person that thinks the moon landing was faked lecturing me on a free market economy. Get real.

Thomas, not only I do stand behind by mighty doubts about the moon landing (we will live long enough to see who is right, I presume) but I also don't grasp the connection between the discussion about "educating" micro-sellers and the fake moon landing.

Cheers and friendship
Fabrizio

[Thomas R. Fletcher]

Yes the market for stock is changing...in some very bad ways due to greedy buyers (in some cases).

Bob Krist ties into one such buyer: http://www.bobkrist....to-enthusiasts/

Bob is a bit feisty in his blog post--rightly so. He's is a true professional who has been at the game quite a while.

(I once took over the travel photography column of Outdoor & Travel Photography after Bob left the magazine--ahh the good old days.)

This post has been edited by Thomas R. Fletcher: 28 March 2010 - 12:05 PM

[Edo]

As I just added to Bob Krist's blog, "contest" is just another term for "crowd sourcing."

[Thomas R. Fletcher]

http://www.nytimes.c...i8mv1sf9WFaIR2g

[Edo]

Yeah, Thomas---I posted that too.

[Thomas R. Fletcher]

I also placed it on the Getty thread, where it has received a number of replies.

[Edo]

And I placed it on the Alamy forum--but you seem to be a step or two ahead of me.

I heard about it this morning on the phone with a friend in Rome. He had read it in today's International Herald Tribune . . . which uses a lot of stuff from the NY Times (owned by, I think).

Edo

[Thomas R. Fletcher]

I also placed it on writersmarketplace.com forum, which may be a professional site you'd like to check out. It's a great site for professional journalists (including photographers, not only writers) but one must be a member of a recognized group of professional journalists to join.

http://www.writersmarketplace.com/

[Thomas R. Fletcher]

http://www.guardian....graphy-internet

[lheusinkveld]

A few points to ponder, random thoughts. First, there is always "unqualified" competition from amateurs that downgrades a profession, unless that profession has the muscle to get themselves made exclusive by law (think doctors, nurses, lawyers, yes yes, the difference is huge, but the closed shop idea expands to many places that are not involved with saving or risking human lives). As a librarian I have a host of unqualified applicants for ever job I apply for, and in many cases the hirer can't tell the difference. There is one, but how to put 2 years of graduate education into ten words or less? So my potential wage gets downgraded to something below what an experienced secretary is paid.

I was just reading that among other luxurious facilities, the Titanic had a fully equipped darkroom. No way that was there because multiple professional photographers needed it, there were probably more amateurs than professionals on that boat.

Then there is the gap between what the picture buyers say they want and what they actually buy. Photoshelter tripped over that one hard. All that stuff that was supposed to set the advertising world on fire just didn't. The people that buy/use what the picture buyers choose know their business and their audience, and they probably assume that for the most part the general population is not excited by pictures that look as if they were taken by Aunt Martha when she went out to get the groceries.

Yes, there are millions and millions of pictures out there taken by amateurs that are every bit as good as what the pro stock photographer produces, but the same thing applies as it always has. Can the amateur keep producing the same quality, and images that buyers want, day in, day out. And as for stock agencies, it takes a whole lot of time to put together a submission, even one to an agency that does all the keywording. I can't see the general dabbler keeping up the interest day in day out and through all those images that never sell or even get a look. True, for every one that drops out there will be another eager to take his place and "make money from my photography".

Me, I will just carry on with what I am doing, try to keep learning, try to find a way to fit what I do best into a changing market, and try to avoid letting myself get sidetracked into stuff that won't be worth my while. The day it stops being fun is the day I quit. I stopped being a librarian when the wages got to be lower than a career in fast food. At least with photography I enjoy what I am doing, and no cheap bastard is trying to make me work a split shift for peanuts.

Louise

[Dave]

edit

This post has been edited by Dave: 05 April 2010 - 12:23 AM

[Thomas R. Fletcher]

Louise:

I like your attitude.

[leaders]

Pepper Stark business trip to Hamburg

http://www.peppersta...er-stark-6.html