Posted by Josh Anderson on January 4, 2007 at 9:27 AM
I just recently began selling for stock. I have read all the debates on here and elsewhere about the controversy between Right Manages and Royalty Free. I have also noticed many professionals sell both. Is it safe to say that your really good images should be RM and your mediocre images RF.? I just recently realized that so many pros sell Royalty Free images.
Hi Josh,
I wouldn't sell photos RF even if they would give me a good income. Too many times I've been told from a magazine - "No thanks, why should we buy your photos? We can get photos almost for free from Istok..."
Sadly - in monetary terms - any work is only worth what the market is willing to pay. Many professions fell by the wayside over the years when disruptive new technologies and markets appeared. Nobody is making money selling ice on the street or offering horseshoeing services in a big city. As fellow photographers we can't help but be sympathetic but at the same time nobody can be successful while ignoring the reality of the new marketplace.
Guy
Posted by Josh Anderson on January 4, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Thanks for the comments Juza and Guy!
Guy, you make a great point. Photography is something that I do because I love it, not something I do for the money although it is nice to get paid for doing something you love. Fortunately I don't have to make a living at it.
Posted by Mark Windom on January 4, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Guy's comment that "any work is only worth what the market is willing to pay" sums up what RF has done to the stock photography industry. Prior to the advent of RF the market was willing to pay a fee that kept many stock shooters happy. When RF came along the argument was your income won't suffer because even though the unit price is considerably less you'll be putting your work within reach of so many more buyers that sheer volume of sales will more than offset loss of higher pricing. That hasn't been the case for many full time stock shooters. RM sales have dropped considerably as many of the type of images that once generated sufficient income for the stock shooter are now generating pennies in the RF and microstock environment.
"Is it safe to say that your really good images should be RM and your mediocre images RF?"
Not really. What you may consider mediocre another may consider perfect for what their intended use is. And once you decide to apply the RF tag to an image you can't/shouldn't put it back in the RM marketplace.
Posted by Josh Anderson on January 4, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Thanks Mark.
Can anyone name a well known Pro who doesn't sell any RF images? I have looked extensively, but I haven't found any.
We recently had a potential client approach us, but only wanted to buy RF. When told we didn't do that, he countered that he didn't have the time to search all the RF markets, and could he pay us our normal rates- up to $1,000- to search online RF sources and prepare a submission, from which he would pick his images.
Yeah, go ahead and do RF and leave the money making up to the pros.
Posted by Josh Anderson on January 4, 2007 at 12:16 PM
OK!
Hank, as I stated earlier, I don't take pictures for the money (though I do enjoy making money from it). I take pictures because I like to share my experience with others.
And, what well known pros don't sell some RF?
Off the top of my head, William Neal, Nevada Wier and John Shaw, last I heard. You simply can't get fair prices for your images when the same ones area available RF.
In our experience clients seem to be willing to invest much more money in staff time or consultive services than for individual photo rights. The biggest point they make in favor of RF is not the price, but freedom from the hassle of tracking and negotiating use fees, licenses and limitations. Recent trends in stock contracting reflect that.
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on January 4, 2007 at 1:23 PM
Joshua wrote: "Can anyone name a well known Pro who doesn't sell any RF images? I have looked extensively, but I haven't found any. "
Really? I have always said the opposite, name a well known pro who sells RF. Maybe I am out of touch, are you saying Wolfe, Lanting, Magelson, Dyking, Rowell, Shaw, Lepp… are all selling RF? That would surprise me.
As more time has gone on, I’m glad I never went near RF - not that I ever considered it. I was always told you could make of lost revenue with volume, but I really doubt anyone is making it up on volume as prices race to the bottom. I think some of the early shooters to market RF did well, some very well, but I don’t believe that is true today.
There was another thread recently where I posted sales and pricing data from a number of the largest agencies; Getty, Corbis and Alamy. The truth is, RM is doing just fine against RF, and in many cases actually doing better.
Posted by Josh Anderson on January 4, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Ron,
Yes, some of the ones you mentioned are selling RF.
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.
The thread is here, in the Photo Marketing forum and you started it Josh.
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on January 4, 2007 at 1:57 PM
Wow, that surprises me Joshua. Thanks for the post Hank.
I think there is probably a great deal of appeal to many to market images as RF. It is probably a quick and easy way to make a few easy bucks. I think by grabbing a quick few bucks now, you may be closing the door to future opportunities.
When I first started getting serious about taking and marketing photography, I never thought I could actually make a living doing it. Had I opted for some quick money back then, I likely would have closed the door on what has turned out to be an amazing life style. I have many people say “yeah, but I don’t want to do photography for a living” That maybe true today, but you may feel much different 10 years from now. Don’t limit your future.
Posted by Ron Niebrugge on January 4, 2007 at 1:58 PM
The other problem placing some images into RF is deciding what should go there. All of my large single image sales ($4,000) plus, I would have deemed mediocre images of over shot subject material – A desert landscape, a buffalo headshot, the Golden Gate Bridge and a pile of poker chips. The poker chips were the result of flash experimentation - I almost didn’t send them to the agency because of all the RF on the same subject – that would have cost me $6,000.
Posted by Josh Anderson on January 4, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Thanks for that Hank.. It is nice to know that RM is doing ok because all you ever here is how bad it is doing.
Personally, I do not have one single image that is RF. I was only considering switching about 10% of my images from RM to RF, but I'm not even sure I will do that now.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on January 4, 2007 at 2:41 PM
(I hope none of this comes across as being in any way, shape or form as being sacastic. A lot of it is based on thoughts I had two years ago.)
Josh, what are your marketing goals? I think that question needs to be answered before worrying about RF vs RM.
Here is my logic. You have already established that you are a good photographer (we have all seen your images), people will buy your work, you are willing to put the time and money into getting the images and that you are interested in marketing your work. So have the basics settled and both RF and RM are an option for you.
Now where do you go? It has already been established that you do not wish to pursue this as a full time job, but there are a lot of intermediate steps before reaching that point, any one of which are within your capabilities. Fair enough.
If all you want is to see your work in print, then take the path of least resistance. RF will probably do that, and provide a small amount of income. But as pointed out above, this is pretty much a dead end one way street for your work.
But consider the amount of time and effort it will take to prepare images for the RF market. Speaking for myself only at this point, I know that I am not the most organized person, nor have the highest standards at times. But if I am going to send out images with my name and/or reputation on them, they are going to be as good as I can get them. Even the opportunity to use an alias is irrelevant. I still know *I* did the work. It doesn't matter if it is RF or RM - I am going to put the same amount of time on them regardless of their end use. This is personal pride in my work speaking, not concern for the buyer.
So now I am faced with a decision. Lots (maybe) of small sales, which probably won't pay for my time and effort, or fewer sales but of dollar amounts more appropriate to the work. I have chosen the latter, RM. Beyond the money issue, I also wished to maintain control of my work, both now and down the road. I may never reach a point where I can leave my day job to pursue this full-time, but I don't see RF as being compatible with option.
My view is that RF is like day-trading, with its potential for short term returns, while RM is closer to investing on mutual funds. It may not be as flashy, but you are setting yourself up for long-term goals and successes.
Posted by Josh Anderson on January 4, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Thanks for all the responses.
As previously stated I am familiar with the differences between the two. I realize that RM is the route to go, with your quality images. I also know this issue has been beaten to death, but recently I became surprised to find out that so many of the pros that we as nature photogs look up to, sell some images as RF. It just surprised me. There is no need in trying to pursuade someone who feels the same as you do.
Some years ago I was approached by a stock agency to place my images with them. After a great deal of thought I decided against it because I didn't the financial arrangements or the exclusivity agreement. This is a decision I haven't regretted though I should add I also do not need photography to earn a living.
As it stands now I do sell to publications and to individuals periodically. I do get published regularly but I really am able to keep my "amateur" status - I photograph because I love it. Making some gas money is a bonus.
Having said that I think I would (and do) go the RM route. I don't feel that that I want to put my images out there on an RF basis because IMO it undermines those photographers who are working hard to make a living at this. This statement assumes of course that my work would be of comparable quality to theirs...
However you decide to go I hope this works out well for you Josh. I've certainly enjoyed your work on NPN.
Posted by Gary Crabbe on January 4, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Joshua:
There is a push in the market from the pros to offer a third option or licensing: simplified version of RM / limited term RF; Getty has something called Rights Ready - but their 10 year term is a joke.
Also, I'm with Ron; I continue to be amazed that many of the RM images I sell are very straight forward shots, and if any had sold as RF, I'd have left money on the table.
I'd be like winning all those poker chips in a great hand of cards, but then walking away from the table without collecting your winnings.
Check out some of the professional resources I have listed on my weblog, including SAA.
Cheers,
Posted by Richard Wong on January 4, 2007 at 6:13 PM
My question is, can you name a successful pro who does sell RF?
I haven't marketed my work for all that long but most of the photos of mine that has sold, I'd consider to be less than of an average standard aesthetically. Yet somebody is buying them as RM. However I doubt any other photographers had those same images either.
Posted by Jack Graham on January 4, 2007 at 8:00 PM
Josh,
Gary is 100% correct and SAA is really worth looking at.
Discussion
20 repliesI wouldn't sell photos RF even if they would give me a good income. Too many times I've been told from a magazine - "No thanks, why should we buy your photos? We can get photos almost for free from Istok..."
Your work is worth more than 1$!
Guy
Guy, you make a great point. Photography is something that I do because I love it, not something I do for the money although it is nice to get paid for doing something you love. Fortunately I don't have to make a living at it.
"Is it safe to say that your really good images should be RM and your mediocre images RF?"
Not really. What you may consider mediocre another may consider perfect for what their intended use is. And once you decide to apply the RF tag to an image you can't/shouldn't put it back in the RM marketplace.
Can anyone name a well known Pro who doesn't sell any RF images? I have looked extensively, but I haven't found any.
We recently had a potential client approach us, but only wanted to buy RF. When told we didn't do that, he countered that he didn't have the time to search all the RF markets, and could he pay us our normal rates- up to $1,000- to search online RF sources and prepare a submission, from which he would pick his images.
Yeah, go ahead and do RF and leave the money making up to the pros.
Hank, as I stated earlier, I don't take pictures for the money (though I do enjoy making money from it). I take pictures because I like to share my experience with others.
And, what well known pros don't sell some RF?
In our experience clients seem to be willing to invest much more money in staff time or consultive services than for individual photo rights. The biggest point they make in favor of RF is not the price, but freedom from the hassle of tracking and negotiating use fees, licenses and limitations. Recent trends in stock contracting reflect that.
Really? I have always said the opposite, name a well known pro who sells RF. Maybe I am out of touch, are you saying Wolfe, Lanting, Magelson, Dyking, Rowell, Shaw, Lepp… are all selling RF? That would surprise me.
As more time has gone on, I’m glad I never went near RF - not that I ever considered it. I was always told you could make of lost revenue with volume, but I really doubt anyone is making it up on volume as prices race to the bottom. I think some of the early shooters to market RF did well, some very well, but I don’t believe that is true today.
There was another thread recently where I posted sales and pricing data from a number of the largest agencies; Getty, Corbis and Alamy. The truth is, RM is doing just fine against RF, and in many cases actually doing better.
Yes, some of the ones you mentioned are selling RF.
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.
The thread is here, in the Photo Marketing forum and you started it Josh.
I think there is probably a great deal of appeal to many to market images as RF. It is probably a quick and easy way to make a few easy bucks. I think by grabbing a quick few bucks now, you may be closing the door to future opportunities.
When I first started getting serious about taking and marketing photography, I never thought I could actually make a living doing it. Had I opted for some quick money back then, I likely would have closed the door on what has turned out to be an amazing life style. I have many people say “yeah, but I don’t want to do photography for a living” That maybe true today, but you may feel much different 10 years from now. Don’t limit your future.
Personally, I do not have one single image that is RF. I was only considering switching about 10% of my images from RM to RF, but I'm not even sure I will do that now.
Josh, what are your marketing goals? I think that question needs to be answered before worrying about RF vs RM.
Here is my logic. You have already established that you are a good photographer (we have all seen your images), people will buy your work, you are willing to put the time and money into getting the images and that you are interested in marketing your work. So have the basics settled and both RF and RM are an option for you.
Now where do you go? It has already been established that you do not wish to pursue this as a full time job, but there are a lot of intermediate steps before reaching that point, any one of which are within your capabilities. Fair enough.
If all you want is to see your work in print, then take the path of least resistance. RF will probably do that, and provide a small amount of income. But as pointed out above, this is pretty much a dead end one way street for your work.
But consider the amount of time and effort it will take to prepare images for the RF market. Speaking for myself only at this point, I know that I am not the most organized person, nor have the highest standards at times. But if I am going to send out images with my name and/or reputation on them, they are going to be as good as I can get them. Even the opportunity to use an alias is irrelevant. I still know *I* did the work. It doesn't matter if it is RF or RM - I am going to put the same amount of time on them regardless of their end use. This is personal pride in my work speaking, not concern for the buyer.
So now I am faced with a decision. Lots (maybe) of small sales, which probably won't pay for my time and effort, or fewer sales but of dollar amounts more appropriate to the work. I have chosen the latter, RM. Beyond the money issue, I also wished to maintain control of my work, both now and down the road. I may never reach a point where I can leave my day job to pursue this full-time, but I don't see RF as being compatible with option.
My view is that RF is like day-trading, with its potential for short term returns, while RM is closer to investing on mutual funds. It may not be as flashy, but you are setting yourself up for long-term goals and successes.
As previously stated I am familiar with the differences between the two. I realize that RM is the route to go, with your quality images. I also know this issue has been beaten to death, but recently I became surprised to find out that so many of the pros that we as nature photogs look up to, sell some images as RF. It just surprised me. There is no need in trying to pursuade someone who feels the same as you do.
As it stands now I do sell to publications and to individuals periodically. I do get published regularly but I really am able to keep my "amateur" status - I photograph because I love it. Making some gas money is a bonus.
Having said that I think I would (and do) go the RM route. I don't feel that that I want to put my images out there on an RF basis because IMO it undermines those photographers who are working hard to make a living at this. This statement assumes of course that my work would be of comparable quality to theirs...
However you decide to go I hope this works out well for you Josh. I've certainly enjoyed your work on NPN.
There is a push in the market from the pros to offer a third option or licensing: simplified version of RM / limited term RF; Getty has something called Rights Ready - but their 10 year term is a joke.
Also, I'm with Ron; I continue to be amazed that many of the RM images I sell are very straight forward shots, and if any had sold as RF, I'd have left money on the table.
I'd be like winning all those poker chips in a great hand of cards, but then walking away from the table without collecting your winnings.
Check out some of the professional resources I have listed on my weblog, including SAA.
Cheers,
I haven't marketed my work for all that long but most of the photos of mine that has sold, I'd consider to be less than of an average standard aesthetically. Yet somebody is buying them as RM. However I doubt any other photographers had those same images either.
Gary is 100% correct and SAA is really worth looking at.
We need to talk.
JG