Studying Stock Photo Sales History And Drawing Conclusions

Shoot to your strength to create photos that are impactful, relavent to the market, and as timeless as possible.

Studying Sales History Of Stock Photos
I spent some time studying the sales history of my stock photos today. I have been keeping track of every sale since 2004, about the time I started shooting RF imagery. Up until that point, until I began shooting for Blend Images, I had limited my stock to Rights Managed images. When I started shooting for Blend I began to also handle the work of some associate photographers and had to keep track of royalty splits. At this point I have access to the sales history of about 1200 Rights Managed images and about 6,000 Royalty Fee images.

Variations In Styles and Subject Matter
Even better, I believe, most of the images in my sales database were actually photographed by photographers who work with me. That means that my sales history covers a wide variety of styles and subject matter. There are images from a total of 14 different photographers.

Long Life Spans And Best Selling Images
When I study the sales history the first thing that strikes me is that my conceptual Rights Managed images have a surprisingly long life span. Over the past six months three of my top twenty images, in terms of earnings, were created over ten years ago. My best selling image over the last six months is a rights managed image that I created fifteen years ago! My best selling royalty free picture was created five years ago. My second and seventh best selling royalty free images were created a little over three years ago. Even when I look at the top 100 images I am still struck by the number of images that exhibit a very long life. Of course, I suppose it could be that I and my cohorts could just be getting worse rather than better at our chosen profession…hope not!

Comparing Images
The next thing that strikes me is that comparing images can be very misleading. I think it might be better to compare shoots. Generally, you get more images from a given shoot, with Royalty Free than with Rights Managed. When I look at shoots, my two best money-producing shoots are royalty free. Most of my Rights Managed images, until very recently, were pretty much one-off undertakings. That is, I came up with a single idea and executed it. I no longer work that way, but with the bulk of my sales history that is what I am dealing with. Based on what I see in my sales history I think it remains important to shoot for both RM and RF.

Concepts, Business Images, Lifestyle And Conclusions
The third conclusion I get from looking at the images is that, for me, everything seems to sell. Concepts sell the best as far as individual images go, our business images tend to sell better than our lifestyle, but a few of the lifestyle images do really, really well. Not only that, but my core of active photographers are all doing equally well despite different approaches, subject matter, and styles.

Core Concepts And Supplemental Opportunities
So what the heck do I do with this information? The best selling images of my group tend to have long life spans; RM and RF both make money, and everything sells. I’ll let you know if I every really figure out what to do with that information. But for now I will just keep going on my path, devising shoots with a core concept and supplemental opportunities, and do my best to create images that have impact, are relevant to the market, and are as timeless as possible.

The Continuing Challenge: RM, RF or Micro?

I am not cut out for producing large quantities of images. My love is for producing highly Photoshop-manipulated concept stock photos. I am guessing that eliminates me from Micro stock…so if anyone reading this has experience that would suggest otherwise, I’d love to hear from you!

I am in stock photography for the money, for the freedom and for the fulfillment of creating images that I want to create. Most of the stock photos that I make require a lot of work to think up, hours of Photoshop work to complete, and a fair amount of capital investment to produce. I know from experience that some of these images can earn just as much in RF as in RM.

I also know from research that some of the best selling Micro images can earn enough to justify putting images into that category. However, in RM I have often had the experience of having an image languish for up to three or four years before suddenly earning thousands of dollars. An image that is not a best seller can still bring in thousands of dollars. I also know that there is no way to predict whether a given image will be a best seller. It seems to me a much bigger risk to place the few images I create into a Micro market.

The image accompanying this blog, an image of the earth as a globe covered in freeways, has been up on the Corbis site for six months without a sale yet. I thought it would be a runaway best seller, or at least sell a couple of times a month. Oh well.... But I trust its time will come. The photo is an example of the kind of picture I love to create most. It’s not like a lot of other images out there. Given the right headline it can have a clear and strong message. It makes a striking visual (if I say so myself). Whether it ever sells or not, it is an image I am proud of.

A disadvantage of Rights Managed photography is that many buyers feel they cannot afford RM and limit themselves to RF or Micro. I think that is unfortunate as I can attest from my sales reports with Getty and Corbis that RM images can be had at VERY affordable prices. I have long said that with RM images you can always undercut RF! I have to admit that I also have an ego bias towards Rights Managed. I even have a hard time contributing to RF for that reason. It is about valuing my work. Of course, I have far more images in RF than RM and those images have done very well for me, particularly with Blend Images. For business reasons I think it prudent to be involved in both models.

When I hear from some of my friends about how well they are doing in Micro, it makes me anxious. With all of the buzz about micro, I keep feeling like I should be participating. And yet, every time I come close to submitting images to Micro I just can’t pull the trigger. I certainly don’t begrudge those who do choose to shoot Micro, and someday I may yet end up with images in Micro. But for now I am limiting my submissions to primarily RM with RF as a continuing hedge.

The case for quality

The case for Quality

At the User Generated Content Expo there was one common theme that kept coming through no matter who the speaker was. That theme was that quality content is key to success. I believe this is an especially important point for stock photographers. Further, that is true whether you are shooting for Rights Managed, Royalty Free or Microstock.

Quality images will rise to the top

The internet has leveled the playing field. It has leveled the playing field in a number of ways. No longer is the world of stock photography open to the few with contracts with the major stock agencies; now anyone can participate. Too, buyers can now compare, instantly, images and prices from across the world. It doesn’t make a difference whether you are competing in Macrostock or Microstock. Sooner, rather than later, the quality images will rise to the top and the lesser images will disappear into the darkness of the seldom or never seen. And that darkness is growing. As the number of images available increases, the chances of anyone seeing any one image decreases. The fundamental problem in selling stock on the internet is rapidly becoming one of being seen. And one answer to that problem is in offering quality work. That is true both for the individual photographer and the agency.

Quality images don’t have to be expensive to produce. You can spend thousands of dollars on a single image, or nothing at all. It isn’t about what it cost to make the image, or what you hoops you jumped through; it is all about the image. A great image can be a grab shot, or an elaborate production, or anything in between.

Your images represent you

Be proud of each and every image you submit. If you aren’t proud of it, don’t submit it. Just as important as creating great imagery is that you don’t dilute your work with the mediocre. It is difficult to be a good judge of your own work, but it is important to constantly work at building your discipline, at being your own harshest critic. Your images are more than just images; they also represent you.

Any resources you utilize to create less than great work is going to be increasingly wasted as those images become more and more eclipsed by better ones. But more importantly, as the distributors struggle to find ways to cut through the clutter and offer their clients more efficient searches and more relevant material, it is quite likely that your body of work will be taken into consideration as well. We can already see that happening at Alamy and iStockphotos, and probably others that I am not familiar with as well.

It will be important to build your own brand, if you will. I think it is a mistake to sit back and rely on the agencies to market your stock. Be proactive. Build your brand. Make your life about quality.

If you make your life about quality, your work will certainly follow. If you make images that you are proud of, images that will solve the problems of others, and if you are proactive in building your brand and insuring that your images are seen, you will be successful.---

Rights Managed, Royalty Free, or Micro Stock?

The Choice Between Rights Managed, Royalty Free, and Micro Stock

Recently a friend of mine, Greg, a man who owns a house painting business in my town, requested that I create photograph for him to run in a direct mail piece. Greg was familiar with my Animal Antics® series of images in which I anthropomorphize cats and dogs putting them in funny human-like poses. He asked that I photograph his own two dogs and utilize them in a similar way…put paint brushes in their hands, and have them
appear to be actually painting a house.

Greg told me that it was the first direct mailing he ever did in which not a single person requested to be removed from his mailing list. He was ecstatic with the results. Why do I bring this up? Because it is an example of how the right picture can make a huge difference for small and large businesses alike.

Are people willing to pay for quality?

As a stock photographer this is a huge issue. I know the right picture can indeed make a significant impact. But perhaps a bigger question is, are people willing to pay the premium for such pictures? I suspect that the answer is that knowledgeable people will recognize the value, and those who do not realize the cost benefits of quality imagery will opt for the less expensive options.

I firmly believe that as time moves on more and more images will be searched for and found on the web outside of the traditional channels of the stock industry. I want to be prepared for that. As I plan for the future I run into the question of whether to put my images into the Rights Managed category, the Royalty Free category, or the Micro Stock category (which seems to me to just be a lower priced Royalty Free model). I believe that the Rights Managed category is most appropriate for the bulk of my stock photos. Yet if I stick to that category I might be shooting myself in the foot. If it does come to pass that eventually the majority of picture sales come from individuals outside of the traditional stock industry, I don’t see them calling up Getty and negotiating rights for an RM image. The most compelling reason to put images in Micro Stock, for me, is the sheer number of people who are looking at those images. But, if people are searching and finding my images via Google (or some yet-to-appear search mechanism), then the appeal of Micro Stock simply becomes one of lower price.

At this point I am counting on creating stock photos that are strong enough that a potential buyer who sees them is willing to either pay Royalty Free rates, or to pick up the phone and negotiate for an RM image. I am not yet ready to put material into the Micro Stock business model. The recently abandoned (modified?) Rights Ready model championed by Getty seemed interesting to me in that it created a higher-priced category that also seemed reasonably simple to license. There still seems to me to be merit in that strategy so perhaps we will eventually see it evolve to the point where it truly works. I would love that!


Where to put stock images?

At least one industry pundit has suggested to me that the migration of sales outside of the normal stock industry channels means that it would behoove me to quit submitting my images to the agencies and license them all myself over my web site. Maybe someday that would be a good strategy, but I think that day, if it ever comes, is still a long, long way off. Despite the industry problems, my stock sales remain strong. Buyers within the stock agency channels are still willing to pay for a quality image. Every month I have multiple sales in the $1,000.00 and up range (and yes, Getty sales in the 40 cent range too). Hey, apparently one of the great things about RM is that it can actually undercut RF and Micro prices! However, for now I am going to concentrate my web site stock efforts on increasing the exposure that my “agency” images have and directing potential buyers to the appropriate agency where they can license the image without my having to get involved.

If any photographers who might happen to read this have any stories of images that have made a difference I would love to hear about them. It might help us all if we help educate the market place and the consumer to the true value that a great image can provide.