Posted by Zack Clothier on March 24, 2010 at 9:49 PM
I was looking at the National Geographic series of topo maps the other day, checking to see where they obtain images for the covers. It came as a major shock..and disapointment to see that it listed istockphoto.com as the photo credit. Very sad.
Posted by Richard Wong on March 25, 2010 at 2:04 AM
I haven't seen the maps but it probably says a lot about how much they value this particular product.
Business is business... and if they can get what they're looking for on the cheap, why wouldn't they? This is America.. and capitalism is the law, for better or for worse. Of course, we'd all love it if everyone paid top dollar for every photo they use
Posted by Frank Winters on March 25, 2010 at 8:04 AM
Yep -- business is business. Every industry that deals with media is under pressure. When is the last time you bought a CD? Did you pay $16.00?
Posted by Mark Windom on March 25, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Better get used to it. Traditional rights managed stock is going down the drain (as is my income) while RF and microstock are taking its place. It's the new stock business model. If you search some the microstock sites such as iStock you'll find alot of garbage but you'll also find alot of very high quality work. The only thing that could prevent this "takeover" is for all photographers to stop submitting to these sites and pull their existing work; ain't gonna happen.
Posted by Cliff Beittel on March 25, 2010 at 5:57 PM
"Traditional rights managed stock is going down the drain (as is my income) while RF and microstock are taking its place. It's the new stock business model."
You imply that income with managed stock is declining, but that a decent income is possible with "the new stock business model". Any evidence of that? I.e., is there any evidence you can do enough volume in RF to make up for the extremely low rates? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that stock photography, both rights managed and royalty free, is going down the drain?
Posted by Mark Windom on March 25, 2010 at 7:35 PM
I didn't mean to imply that a decent income is possible with RF (see below, however). Most of my stock agency images are in the RM market but the pressure from agency editors has been to place more content in the RF side of things which I begrudgingly started doing a few years ago.
Having said that I do know a few photogs who are making a decent living off of RF (names not to be mentioned as I'm not sure they would want that to be common knowledge among a group of photographers). The majority, however, are struggling....in both RM and RF markets.
What I've done (and I probably shouldn't admit to this) is place those images that my traditional agencies reject with iStock.....and I hate to admit that on a prorated basis (much fewer images at iStock than traditional agencies) my microstock income is outpacing my RM income. Sad, but true.
Posted by Gary Crabbe on March 31, 2010 at 3:27 PM
I'm just crawling out from a several months long self-imposed hibernation. It's interesting that I find this thread on my very first visit back to NPN.
There is no doubt that the world of stock photography is in turmoil, just as many businesses are finding themselves in the same boat. There is no doubt that money matters. People that buy and use photos are always looking for the best value, and in most instances will gladly accept good enough if it's cheaper. Technology and the saturation of images in the marketplace have driven the value down. The number of suppliers has increased, so no matter which pricing model you choose, there are more people competing for the same slice of pie.
It's interesting to note that just last week I made a post on my weblog regarding the turmoil in the stock photography industry, and related it to the old saying by Chicken Little, "The sky is falling!"
Discussion
7 repliesYou imply that income with managed stock is declining, but that a decent income is possible with "the new stock business model". Any evidence of that? I.e., is there any evidence you can do enough volume in RF to make up for the extremely low rates? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that stock photography, both rights managed and royalty free, is going down the drain?
Having said that I do know a few photogs who are making a decent living off of RF (names not to be mentioned as I'm not sure they would want that to be common knowledge among a group of photographers). The majority, however, are struggling....in both RM and RF markets.
What I've done (and I probably shouldn't admit to this) is place those images that my traditional agencies reject with iStock.....and I hate to admit that on a prorated basis (much fewer images at iStock than traditional agencies) my microstock income is outpacing my RM income. Sad, but true.
There is no doubt that the world of stock photography is in turmoil, just as many businesses are finding themselves in the same boat. There is no doubt that money matters. People that buy and use photos are always looking for the best value, and in most instances will gladly accept good enough if it's cheaper. Technology and the saturation of images in the marketplace have driven the value down. The number of suppliers has increased, so no matter which pricing model you choose, there are more people competing for the same slice of pie.
It's interesting to note that just last week I made a post on my weblog regarding the turmoil in the stock photography industry, and related it to the old saying by Chicken Little, "The sky is falling!"