Is Footage As Lucrative as Stills?

Posted on 6/21/2007 by Jim Pickerell | Printable Version | Comments (0)

June 21, 2007

By: Jim Pickerell

After reading Story 965 by Pat Hunt on the stock production operation of Tom Grill and his daughter Jamie one subscriber said, "If Grill is a 'marketing genius ahead of the pack' (as the article stated) why was there nothing in the article about footage?" This photographer believes that with the current over-supply of stills, and looking to potential future needs, there is greater opportunity in the production of footage and wondered why and industry leader, and particularly his daughter who's in her 30s, isn't moving in that direction. I put that question Tom and he answered:

    "Funny you should ask. Jamie and I are right now preparing to do footage. In fact, Jamie's boyfriend, Reuben Atlas, is a documentary film maker and is teaming up with Jamie to begin shooting stock footage this summer. I will be doing it independently later this year.

    "I actually shot film in my very early career. Consequently, I don't expect the transition to be too difficult, except that now everything is digital so I have to relearn some techniques.

    "We already have specific shoots in the planning stages. The trick is what to shoot at this stage. The field is wide open, but that should not be construed as a license to go shoot anything. We will be concentrating on RM, which requires more high end equipment, but is more lucrative that RF. We have some ideas that I think will be successful during this infancy stage of footage.

    "It has only been recently -- and by that I mean this past year -- that stock footage has moved to a position of being as lucrative as still images. That is the main reason I have remained on the sidelines observing the growth of film. I always enjoy jumping in at the beginning of a new movement in stock. That's when the real money is made and when a shooter can stake a claim. But timing is everything. You don't want to jump in before the market is lucrative. On the other hand, you don't want to enter the field so late that all the main image subject slots are filled up.

    "While I do think that footage offers a new potential for young photographers, I don't feel it is necessary to shoot both footage and stills, especially for a beginner. Sometimes this can be distracting and result in neither one being done as well as it should be. Footage does, however, open a completely new field that has the potential to disperse some of the excessive energy that is now pouring into stock photography and resulting in a heated up competitive marketplace. Having a footage outlet will, hopefully, offer another avenue to absorb the heavy traffic of new photographers entering the scene."

Another Point Of View

While I agree with much of what Tom had to say, I questioned the statement, "It has only been recently -- and by that I mean this past year -- that stock footage has moved to a position of being as lucrative as still images." I decided to talk to a shooter who has been producing video for Image Bank (now Getty Images) for more than 15 years. This shooter prefers to remain anonymous but he has a somewhat different take on the profitability of the footage business. He also sees more current demand for RF footage rather than RM, but RF footage is selling for half the price, or less, of RM. Thus, you've got to sell at least twice as much of it to generate the same revenue.

He shoots both stills and video, although not necessarily on the same shoot, and tends to concentrate his efforts on the type of work that produces the best return. For the moment that is footage, but so far he doesn't see evidence that footage sales are really taking off.

When he started shooting footage in the 90s there was a slow build, but by the end of the decade footage shoots were producing two to three times what he was earning from still shoots. In '98 or '99 when computers and the Internet were going crazy he did one video shoot of people at home using high tech devices that cost about $10,000. Within two years he made over $100,000 from that shoot. However, remember, this was at the peak of the Internet boom.

Getty acquired TIB and its film division in 1999 and at that time it was reported that TIB's 1998 footage sales were $24,835,272. It is believed that Getty's total footage sales skyrocketed over the next couple years and had risen to approximately $40 million in annual revenue in 2001 before 9/11.

After 9/11 and the Internet bust, there was a significant drop. Most of the corporate use of stock footage, which in the hay day had been about 30% of the total, disappeared as a result of cutbacks on business travel and meetings. Ad sales also declined. Meanwhile, the cost of producing footage continued to increase. According to my source the days when you could get a 10 to 1 return on investment disappeared. Now a 5 to 1 return would be good and that might take 3 to 4 years instead of 2. Overall this photographer's revenue is still down from where it was at the peak. And not only has his overall revenue declined, but his profitability has declined even more due to rising costs.

Meanwhile after it hit bottom Getty's revenue started growing again. In 2003 Getty's revenue from footage was $29.68 million; in 2004, $33.3 million; in 2005, $38.11 million and in 2006, $43.19 million.

My source feels that competition hasn't been a big factor in his overall decline in revenue. He says some new people have entered the market but others have dropped out. The cost of production has gone up, but the usage hasn't changed all that much and the average price the customer pays for RM footage has stayed about the same.

A couple years ago as the cost of production days were creeping from $10,000 a day to $20,000 to $30,000 a day he decided to put more energy back into producing stills, hoping that the combination of his existing footage collection plus stills would bring his revenue back to where it used to be. That didn't happen and now he has gone back to focusing on footage because it is still the most profitable thing he does.

In the ACSIL survey published in April (Story 963) it was estimated that total worldwide revenue from stock footage in 2006 was $282 million. The survey also estimated that 90% of the footage (representing about $28 million in revenue) was originally shot for some purpose other than stock, such as a TV or a major film production. In these cases the footage was re-purposed as stock to earn some extra income. That income did not have to totally cover the cost of production plus profit as is the case with footage shot specifically for stock. The advantages those that are producing the 90% have is that someone else, or some other project, has covered all the costs of production.

Difficulties In Shooting Footage

Getting into film is a risky business compared to stills. The price of entry for film is very high compared to stills. Now, Getty requires that everything be delivered in HD. In the good old days you shot film, processed it, and did a one light transfer to Beta SP. Getty would then edit and re-transfer to HD. Now in their rush to cut overhead they are requiring the filmmaker to supply everything as a finished HD element -- before editing. Instead of being able to transfer stuff at $300 an hour it is now $600 to $800 per hour. Thus, part of the reason one wants to shoot on HD is to eliminate that step. Of course the royalty percentage is not adjusted in any way to account for the additional burden on the filmmaker.

So it seems that while the return per shoot may be better on footage than it is on stills, the cost of productions, the capital at risk, the steep curve in learning how to shoot footage effectively and the lack of assurance as to where the market is really headed are all reasons for moving very carefully. On the other hand the option of sticking with stills doesn't seem to offer a lot of future potential for photographers either.


Copyright © 2007 Jim Pickerell. The above article may not be copied, reproduced, excerpted or distributed in any manner without written permission from the author. All requests should be submitted to Selling Stock at 10319 Westlake Drive, Suite 162, Bethesda, MD 20817, phone 301-251-0720, e-mail: wvz@fpcubgbf.pbz

Jim Pickerell is founder of www.selling-stock.com, an online newsletter that publishes daily. He is also available for personal telephone consultations on pricing and other matters related to stock photography. He occasionally acts as an expert witness on matters related to stock photography. For his current curriculum vitae go to: http://www.jimpickerell.com/Curriculum-Vitae.aspx.  

Comments

Be the first to comment below.

Post Comment

You must log in to post comments.

Stay Connected

Sign up to receive our FREE weekly email listing new stories posted.

Follow Us

Free Stuff

Recent Stories – Summer 2016
If you’ve been shooting all summer and haven’t had time to keep up with your reading here are links to a few stories you might want to check out as we move into the fall. To begin, be sure to complet...
Read More
Corbis Acquisition by VCG/Getty Images
This story provides links to several stories that relate to the Visual China Group (VCG) acquisition of Corbis and the role Getty Images has been assigned in the transfer of Corbis assets to the Gett...
Read More
Finding The Right Image
Many think search will be solved with better Metadata. While metadata is important, there are limits to how far it can take the customer toward finding the right piece of content. This story provides...
Read More
Where Is The Stock Photo Industry Headed?
For new readers, or those who may have missed some of what I have written over the last few months, the following are a list of stories worth looking at to get a sense of where the industry is headed.
Read More
Photography As A Career
It’s that time of year when high school seniors are waiting for college acceptance letters and thinking about future careers. If you know someone who is thinking about photography as a career you mig...
Read More
2014 Stories You May Have Missed
For many the end of the year is a time to review past experiences and consider whether it makes sense to chart a new course in the year ahead. Stock photography has changed dramatically for professio...
Read More
More Stories In 2014 You May Have Missed
Every so often I put together a list of the most important stories we’ve published in the recent past. If you are engaged in the business of stock photography the links below are to stories that we’v...
Read More
Getty: A Three Month Review
In all the excitement about 35 million FREE images it is worth looking back at some of things that have been happening at Getty Images in the last three months. After watching revenue decline for the...
Read More
State Of Stock Photo Industry: 2013
If you’re looking for an overview of the state of the stock photo industry as of October 2013 the stories listed below are a good place to start. Regular readers of Selling-Stock will have seen all t...
Read More
Education Market Shifts To Digital
If supplying pictures for educational use is a significant part of your business plan you need to be aware of how the market is trending toward digital delivery and how that is likely to affect the p...
Read More

More from Free Stuff