Microstock Isn’t for Everybody
Many people criticize the microstock business and specific microstock agencies when the real reason for their discontent is that microstock just isn’t suitable for them. It’s obviously working for some people, so let’s look at some of the situations where microstock isn’t suitable and some of the alternatives that may be more appropriate.
You’re an “Artist”
Almost all successful stock photographers, microstock or traditional, are also business people. They look at what the market wants and create accordingly. This means conducting their own research or buying it, and following market trends or trying to predict them.
If your passion is shooting landscapes, abstracts, fine art or other less commercially popular subjects, you can expect to work harder than others in the microstock market. All successful stock photographers have an element of art to what they do, but they’re not all “Artists” with the inverted commas.
Still, there are many “Artists” who are also successful stock photographers, but they’re the exception. If you’re an “Artist” and want to make stock photography work for you, you need to adjust your expectations accordingly.
You Can’t Handle Rejection
Rejection in the microstock market is unavoidable. Even the top contributors get images rejected. The list of technical requirements is long and every submission must meet them all and at the same time be commercially appealing. Add to that the fact that reviewers often have less experience and knowledge in the stock photo industry than the contributing photographer and frequent inconsistencies in rejections across various agencies, and it can get frustrating.
If you can’t disconnect from your photos enough to accept the rejections, learn what you can and just move on, then you can expect contributing in the microstock market to be frustrating.
You Can’t Get Past the Commission Rates
Microstock commission rates are very low! They can get as low as 18 cents. Looking at it this way it’s hard to see why anyone would sell photos in the microstock market. A photo which you carefully crafted using all your skill, talent, experience and expensive equipment sells for only 18 cents commission!
Successful microstockers look past this perspective. They see the income in terms of time rather than individual sales. Photos obviously sell many times and continue to sell each day, hopefully for years. If you can’t get past the individual commission rates and see the bigger picture then you won’t enjoy selling photos in the microstock market.
You’re Already a Professional Photographer
Many professional photographers working in areas other than stock see microstock as an open opportunity to leverage their skills and equipment to generate a side income. If hobbyists can earn a few hundred dollars a month, surely a professional can do even better.
The fact is that microstock, and stock photography in general, has different requirements than other areas of photography and many professional photographers experience difficulties getting started in microstock. However, some professional photographers thrive in the microstock market. The difference seems to be in the investment of time and energy to understand stock photography and the microstock business. If you look at microstock as any easy-entry and lucrative sideline, microstock may not be for you.
So What are the Alternatives?
If microstock isn’t for you, there’s no shortage of alternative outlets to sell your photos. Here’s some suggestions:
Alamy – an established agency which accepts submissions from the public. Prices are at traditional levels (except the Novel Use scheme) and they offer both Royalty Free and Rights Managed licenses.
PhotoShelter – a new agency who are doing many things right. Sales are still slow and uploading is a lot of work, but they allow you to set your price (minimum $50) and you choose your license.
Inmagine – accepts submissions from the public through its IRIS system. You can choose both a price tier and a license type.
Cutcaster – a new agency supporting prices that run the full range. You choose the price and can receive pricing feedback based on how well your image performs.
Shutterpoint – a pay-to-play agency that allows you to set your own prices from $20 up.
FeaturePics – a microstock agency that lets you set your prices above microstock levels. They also enable Rights Managed sales.
Posted August 28th, 2008 by Lee Torrens
Topics: Contributing, Macrostock, Microstock, Rights Managed
There is another perspective then “cant get past the commision” – I dont mind selling micro for blogs, small prints, newspapers etc. I have BIG problem selling micro to big webdevelopers using it on templates, advertising agencies, book covers etc. – all these pros charge 1.000-10.000x more per hour of their work then they pay you for your skill, gear costs, experience etc. This is the real problem, not the commision itself.
The another problem is that many agencies take 70% or more, some are even over 90% (eg SS). I always say there is 80/20 rule – you do 80% or the work and get 20% of money. Photographer could never win this business – just one single page of advertising in magazine is easily over $1.000 which is considered very cheap. Why they cant pay properly then? Is 10% of that for photographer much? Is 0,0001% fair? Its not good to think about this business only from microstock point of view – agency/buyer saves a HUGE amount of money on buying micro, microstock agency takes over 70% and photographer gets his/her few pennies. Who is winner of this equation?
There is always argument that you sell it many times and so you earn. But EACH time client saves extremely more then you earn. I would say that not every photo is for microstock. You can do 100 or even 200 pics in studio per day. Did you try to shoot 200 landscapes per day, or even 100? Or 100 wildlifes per day?
I dont wanna say microstock is bad, I wouldnt upload a single photo there in such case but I want to say: “Think twice before you start and think about every photo before you upload”.
Be good:)
Hi Zbynek,
The debate over designers using cheap images in big and expensive projects is coming up more frequently. I plan to explore this topic in a future blog post as I see a few different perspectives on that one. Thanks for highlighting it.
As for agencies taking a large portion of the revenue, I’m very happy to give 80% to iStock because they sell my photos so frequently. At the end of the month, they’re usually the one who sends me the biggest payment. I’m in the business of maximizing the value of my photos while they’re still relevant and iStock do that better than anyone (most months). To me, “fair” isn’t relevant because nobody is forcing me to do business with them. If they’ve worked to build up the biggest customer base, then good for them. They can do what they like with the 80% as long as they’re producing results.
Plus, if I thought for a second that a buyer would switch agencies in order to get my photo, naturally I’d put all my photos with the agency that had the best commission rates. But that’s no realistic. With millions of photos to choose from, a buyer will choose the most appropriate photo from their preferred agency nine times out of ten.
About the client saving more than I earn, I agree, but I’m not upset about it. If I wanted to ensure the customers who buy my photos paid as much as they could afford, I’d be selling them Rights Managed. As far as I understand it, when you offer a photo for sale with a Royalty Free license you give up the ability to charge one customer more than another. I guess that’s what you’re talking about when you say to “think about every photo before you upload”.
Thanks for your comment, and thanks for being smart and rational about this topic.
-Lee
Great article, very very true. I believe you can also add these sites to your “alternative” list:
http://www.shutterpoint.com
http://www.keenimages.com
http://www.featurepics.com
Be sure to read my stock photo blog at http://www.startstock.com.
Thanks Tzar, I’ve added Shutterpoint and FeaturePics to the list.
-Lee
Shutterpoint sucks. Sorry to say, but they have a very bad service and I withdraw last week. I came to this site looking for an alternative service provider.
And you can also add RedBubble for those who want to sell their art…!
Well, honestly said if agency sells well I dont mind if they take more %. Im not refusing microstock, just some use of it and the direction where is SS heading now is very dangerous. Microstock started as let say database where designers shared pictures used for small projects, new designs, web etc. and where the huge prices of RM were not economic. Now we are in another extreme – selling pics which costs $100 or even more to create and we hope to sell them several hundreds times in average to cover the costs. Or the worse – pro photographer shoots session, then picks best photos for client and the rest is going to micro because they were already payed, but why shouldnt they earn even more? This is both extreme dumping business which is considered illegal in most civilised countries and very dishonest to the session financing client.
Im pretty curious how will microstock evolve, my angle of view is different because I did start with direct contracts and macrostock and since december 2007 Im also in micro. Its just interesting experiment for me now as I get just few percents of my total income from micro but its steadily rising. I still have pretty small portfolios at microsites but I must admit Ive learned a lot in microstock business. Its easy just criticise but I prefer to try first so i have some numbers and personal experience:) Im not a full time pro photographer and Im also more or less specialised on nature/travel and ancient architecture so my clients are pretty limited.
Well put, Lee. It seems a lot of amateurs and professionals view microstock as easy extra money without realizing that to be successful at it really requires focusing both their photographic style and business strategy on the microstock market.
I DUGG IT! You speak from experience and serious reflection, and I plan to share it with photographer friends who consider microstock.
I’d say that well over 50% of photographers who go into microstock would be wise to spend time and effort marketing their photography in other ways OR additional ways. This is partly based on how much I make and what my ranking is (which is not impressive) at any agency that provides that info, so that means that only X number of contributors are making more than I am.
Your illustration is dead on, and your article can help save a person time and effort trying to be a “square” photographer in a “round” market. Plus, your alternatives are a positive addition. Another resource: Photographer’s Market. I have the 2009 edition pre-ordered. Oh, there’s always Getty and Corbis, too
Thanks Ann, I’d agree with the “well over 50%” statement.
I didn’t mention Getty and Corbis as they don’t take public submissions like the ones I did mention, but they’re obviously an “alternative” to microstock (how ironic!) if you’re good enough to get accepted.
-Lee
Another resource I’ve just come across and started to use is Imagekind.com. From what I’ve read it’s really up to the artist to market their work, so they’re really just a print on demand, but you never know. I’m just using the free account right now, maybe if some stuff sells off the site I’ll upgrade to a paid account so I can add more images.
Good post, Lee. I’ve been kicking around a similar idea for a while now, but never really put it all together in written form. I was thinking that there are varying expectations for those entering microstock, and many of those expectations are based on past experiences in stock photography. The harsh reality that many people face is that microstock is a very different animal, and it will not suit everyone, even those with previous stock experience. It’s not like just going from RF at Getty to RF at istockphoto. While the license may be similar, the business of microstock can be very different and often tough to swallow.
I have frequently felt like I need to let go of some of my attachment to my work, and look at it more like a product than a piece of art. There is a lot more misuse, theft, license violation, etc., in microstock, and if someone can’t handle being the victim of a little of that, microstock can leave them feeling very bitter about their decision to enter the microstock market.
Great post! You nailed the “time rather than individual sales” idea. Momentum is key. Keep shooting and uploading and you will see results.
I wrote more about the “Price Barrier” on my blog.
Nick
great article!
also there are Redbubble if you don’t want to microstock
I have no objection to micro pricing. It is the licence that I object to.
If there were usage restrictions to limit micro images to micro ‘community’ uses then there wouldn’t be a problem. The reality is that designers benefit from cheap prices – ‘the designers’ dirty little secret’ – and continue to charge the end user whatever they can get away with.
Instead of ‘macro bashing’ – ‘those old trad photographers are going to be blown away woo-hoo’ it is surely time that micros started to move towards a more unified stock industry.
A more restricted micro licence and more realistic pricing for non micro uses is essential and would benefit all photographers ( if not all designers).
It’s time that micros started to value photography and photographers rather than just design and designers.
Ian Murray
Ian, nobody is ‘macro bashing’ here, but as I designer I take your comment as ‘designer bashing’. I pass on the full benefit of microstock pricing to my clients and know many other designers who do so too. As stock buyers, designers are your clients, so I don’t see the value in making sweeping moral judgments against them like that.
Microstock does value photography and photographers, but based on the current market where supply is plentiful. Your product is no longer scarce, so you need to update your perception of it’s value. You must reach the upper tiers of quality if you want to continue charging a premium on that market value (traditional stock photo market prices). Otherwise you’ll struggle to be competitive in the new market.
There’s too much competition among microstock agencies for anyone to implement the sweeping license changes you describe. The market has changed and it’s not going to change back. Some people won, some people lost. Designers won. You lost. Deal with it and move on. If you can’t, at least do something in the real world. Create an union or association or something. Your ranting in forums and blogs hasn’t achieved anything beyond creating a name for yourself. Perhaps that’s something you can leverage to initiate a movement. If you succeed in changing the market, good for you. If not, perhaps you’ll start to see some of the reasons why, which countless online discussions haven’t managed to achieve.
Thanks for your comment.
-Lee