Stock Agencies

Just wondering who you guys/gals think are good stock agencies.

If you read some of the other recent threads you will see that finding a good one is getting more difficult as prices continue to fall in the stock image industry. It seems that rights managed stock image prices are under enormous pressure from the royalty free image market. With consumer dslr cameras climbing the megapixel ladder towards professional resolution and getting better and better at noise reduction, people who don't desire to make photography a profession are flooding the royalty free market with some pretty nice work and are willing to accept the miniscule dollars they get paid for it. It is becoming very tough to make it on stock image sales alone. In fact, I wonder what percentage of photographers are making it on stock sales alone today vs. 3 and 5 years ago.

Interesting question Walter. I would also like to know the answer to that. I doubt too many.

Joshua,

To my mind it boils down to what your time is worth to you and where you are in your career.

My agency in Canada stopped accepting landscapes some time ago. They will accept some if unique or different, however their main demand is model released lifestyle. Because of my remote location they do accept many of the landscapes I send. With the small population here lifestyle isn't much of an option.

What landscapes have sold, have largely been for European calenders. If I were still shooting film, my returns would not have paid for the film used in the two years I've been here.

Given the low rates in my location and the fact I'm later in my career, I have come to the decision that to have a stable retirement, employment in other than photography is in the near future. I'll continue to shoot stock, but with a view to making photography a paid hobby.

As Hank noted in the Getty thread, the (in my opinion) deteriorating quality of stock will benefit the photographer who can land customers who will pay good money for good work. While not advising people against stock, it isn't the living it once was. It is a rapidly changing market which one needs to study carefully before entering.

Dave

If there's a bright side to contemporary stock, it may be in the ease of creating dupes compared to previous days dominated by film. If I accepted placement with a stock agency right now, it would be with the provision that I could continue to offer and sell the same images through my own efforts. That would be a sincere turning point for me in negotiations, because in my experience I can usually generate more income through my own stock sales. Traditional stock would be a means to augment other income, along the lines of David's post.

I have nothing to base this upon, but I have to guess that traditional stock agencies are having a tougher time selling just as their photographers are. Is the next step in the pressure on photographers to be larger cuts from sales for the agencies?

Josh, I see you have had some images up at Alamy. I wouldn't completely disregard them, depending on what options you may pick. But at the same time, you will need a lot more images than what you currently have there (and better keyworded). I have had several sales with them this year, but I am now up to about 700 images with them, from the 50 or so last year when I last talked to you.

I have seen some comments from the "other website" that Getty has changed their shooter requirements, with the addition of Istockphoto

(http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=82520)

but I haven't looked at this option at all. At least Getty is legit.


Josh, I really would not look at the Istockfoto.com type of places unless all you really want is to see your material in print. For the amount of effort it will take to prepare your images, you won't make enough money to be worth your time. Plus we have all seen your work - it deserves a better home than royalty free sales.

Stock is not going to make you rich or let you quit your job. But if you are willing to commit yourself to this option, you will have to *commit* yourself for several years before it really begins to pay off, no matter what agency you pick.

Acclaim Images sell their RF images for a decent price (and priced according to size) and the photographer gets 50% from each sale. Most photogs at the site sell a mix of RF and RM. The downside is that fine art prints also go for a decent price..of which 50% goes for printing, handling, etc...then you get 50% of what's left. There is supposed to be a choice soon to set your own prices on the prints and to opt out of their selling your images for prints.

The majority of photogs I know who are with stock agencies and have been for the past several years, myself included, have seen a tremendous drop in income due primarily to declining RM sales. In addition what income is being made isn't being paid in a timely manner. Choosing which stock agency to deal with is a tough call these days. You might want to consider a smaller local agency if one exists in your area, one that you can have direct personal contact with.

From everything I have read in the last year, the place where money can still be made is in images that have people in them and that have release forms signed. This can be for stock or on assignment. Hank and several others have commented on that fact. If you are looking to make photography a full time professional (sole source of income), you will need a high percentage majority of people shots that you can continue to sell over and over again. That seems to be what the market is really consuming at the moment. I have also read this in every Photographers Market guide for the last three years (2004, 2005 & 2006). I have not yet purchased a 2007 Photographers Market guide, but I expect it will be no different.

Walter - I'll save you buying the 2007 Photographer's market - It says to put people in the image as well.

I just read a magazine article mentioning the second tier agencies and find out that my specialty is not well presented in Super Stock (RM). So I would like to take this opportunity to ask anyone who knows about or has experience with Super Stock. Especially their strength in terms of editorial/commercial, geographic market and of course the sales and relations with photographer.

Thank you.

Fadil, you may want to start a new thread for this question as I suspect a lot of readers may overlook it here (this thread has been quiet for a while).

Unfortunately, beyond that, I can't answer your question since I really have not looked at this company very carefully. What is your speciality? The reason I ask is that there may be a better stock agency option for your work someone knows about.

Thank you Dan, I'm considering it, since I don't sit in front of computer and connect to the internet all the time Perhaps my specialty is not too special. I cover my own country. Anyway, your thread is very useful. Thanks.

I never tried any larger agencies when I started looking for stock agencies because even back then the market was over saturated with outdoor images and I assumed no one would be looking at adding outdoor photogs to their agency.

I've tried two agencies. The first was a small online agency, maybe one of the first that started totally online. Out of five years or so I only made sales one year--about $300. They eventually got bought out by a large RF company and I didn't go with that.

The second agency I've been with is a small agency dedicated to only one state here in the US and I've had better luck with them--maybe $300/year for the past three years. So perhaps you should look at a small agency that specializes in your area--even at that though if you want to make much money you'll have to be shooting and sending in a large volume--the one I'm with I probably have only about a hundred images with and haven't been working in that state since then.

I think your best bet is marketing the photos yourself and consider what else you can add to the income--whether by writing, photo tours in your area, etc. Consider what it is you're good at and interested in.

If you only have time to conisder sending photos in to an agency to sale then you might want to reconsider and be happy with photography as your craft or hobby or maybe think of ways to sell your work locally. Thanks, Randy

Well I just checked out your website Josh--real nice work!--and see you already are doing things I mentioned :). Guess I was just stating the obvious. There just really isn't a market in stock agencies for outdoor work anymore. so be happy with what you're doing and enjoy your time in the field!. Randy

Since we've got into the idea of RF vs. RM (pretty much inevitable) is something like ShutterPoint perhaps a more reasonable compromise? Photographers set their own price. Images are used royalty free. ShutterPoint's commission is 15%. You do have to pay for storage space on their server so the combined cost of that and their commission would have to be weighed against what the micro-payment sites charge. Prices are definitely higher than the micro-payment sites although probably not as high as RM agencies.

This is just my own opinion, but any agency making 50% on my images should not charge me to store or market them. In my opinion, that is what the 50% commission goes towards. And storage and infrastructure are getting cheaper all the time. A 15% commission is pretty darn low and sounds attractive. It definitely would have to be weighed against the storage fees, and the fact that you will lose repeat sales to the same customers because it is RF. RF means they pay you once and they get to use it forever, however they choose.

Financially, marketing via RF probably only makes sense for photographers with very lowest ability levels. Even then, I think it is a mistake, because even the greatest photographers of all time were beginners at one point, and I bet most of them are glad they didn’t give away full and unlimited use of their images for a few hundred bucks.

I think the real reason a lot of photographers consider RF is because they read all the gloom and doom about RM photography on this and other internet sites. The simple fact is, RM is going strong and growing. I think it is easy to confuse increased competition among photographers with pricing methods. The challenges in the industry have more to do with increased competition, not pricing method.

My first hand experience tells me RM is going strong. We make most our living via direct marketing of RM images and during this past year our sales and prices have both increased. We supplement our income with a number of stock agencies, and I have experienced the same trend with them as well.

Admittedly, a sample of one photographer is not representative of the market as a whole. Let’s look at the three biggest players in the industry, Getty Corbis and Alamy. Estimates vary, but combined they make up more then half the world wide market for stock photo sales even by the most conservative estimates.

Starting with the biggest; Getty’s total sales were down for the third quarter 2006, but RM sales dropped far less then RF with RM down 1 percent to a 4 percent drop in RF. In the second quarter of 2006 total RF sales were flat, while total RM sales were up 6.2% as compared to the same quarter the year before. In terms of total sales, RM still out sells RF with Getty.

The second quarter of 2006 is the latest figures I have for Corbis. At that time the average price for RM was up 9% and RM revenue was up 8% for the year. RM images still makes up 80% of total revenue at Corbis.

At Alamy, for each and every quarter for the last 3 years (all the data I have) the % of revenue derived from RM sales has steadily increased as has the % of images sold as RM going from 51% in 2004 to 71% for the 3rd quarter in 2006.

As you can see, RM prices and volume are up for the majority of the worldwide market, this is still where the money is being made. Now I don’t doubt many photographers are struggling these days, but I believe it is because of increased competition among photographers, not pricing methods. Consider the decision to market via RF carefully because once an image has sold as RF, it can never be marketed as RM. And don’t be overly influenced by all the gloom and doom.