Ed: Jonathan Ross is one of the most successful stock photographers
in the business today. His work is available at all pricing levels
including rights managed, traditional royalty free and microstock. In a
presentation at the New Media Conference held as part of the CEPIC
International Congress in Dublin, Ireland, in early June, Ross offered
his thoughts on where the industry is headed and what is needed to move
ahead. Following is a transcript of that presentation.
Today’s market has, or is slowly moving into, three tiers of pricing: micro, midstock and macrostock. The
addition of the newest model, microstock, has caused an adjustment in
the distribution of revenue. Each model has sought to supply its buyers
with images they need at prices they can afford, but also prices that create enough return to enable photographers to continue to invest in making better and stronger images for the final end-users of the future.
| Instead of pointing fingers at those who started the drop in revenue, it is to everyone’s advantage to “right this ship” so all three tiers—microstock, midstock and macrostock—and the buyers can continue to profit and meet their financial needs. |
One issue that has arisen is the extreme price drop from macro to
micro. It caused the entire industry to suffer a great loss of revenue.
Given the difference in licensing structures, rights-managed images may
not have gotten get hit as hard as traditional royalty-free, which has
had to struggle through the price shift to find its new market so
photographers can continue to produce at lower returns in royalties.
As with new models in every line of business, buyers swarmed to
micro because of the huge price savings. The low prices also brought
new buyers that could not afford macro RF in the past.
Instead of pointing fingers at those who started the drop in
revenue, it is to everyone’s advantage to “right this ship” so all
three tiers and the buyers can continue to profit and meet their
financial needs.
One could argue that macro RF was extremely overpriced and left the
market open for undercutting. It could also be noted that before micro,
the average sale price for a macro RF shot through one of the top
agencies was just over $100. Yet such arguments exemplify looking to
the past and continuing frustration, instead of an attempt at making
the three tiers of stock work in harmony for everyone in our future.
I am involved in all three tiers. First, I am a co-owner of three
macro collections and a direct supplier of my own content to 20 others.
I also have 3,500 images in microstock collections and 10 resellers for
my company, so I have a vested interest in all these models meeting
their buyer’s needs.
A large part of the battle for dollars, as I see it, is that some
truly excellent imagery ends up in micro, where it does not return
nearly the revenue that both agencies and image creators should see for
their efforts. Yes, a handful of micro photographers are making good
returns, but these are typically the people that got in early and thus
retain a strong hold on the top-selling images—partially because
customers can search by "most downloads," as well as because these
photographers usually have the strongest photos for this market.
One way this can be changed is to increase microstock prices for the
top-quality, most popular images. If an image is selling for $1,
increasing that return by 20% means the markup would only have to be 20
cents. It would not reduce overall sales or remove buyers from the
market. With the possible exception of subscription brands, it would
only produce more money for agencies and their photographers. For
top-quality imagery, pricing should be raised even further;
iStockphoto’s Vetta brand is a move in the right direction.
| Distributors have suffered as much as photographers. They have seen their profits drop over the last few years, so this pinch is felt at every level. |
If photographers are able to make a reasonable income, they can
continue to produce stronger and more salable images for their
distributors, who have suffered as much as photographers. They have
seen their profits drop over the last few years, so this pinch is felt
at every level. This highlights that we are all in this together, and
we need to rally to make the future even stronger than what we are
experiencing. The sooner we remove the walls and really start to work
together, the better off we will all be. The closer we become as an
industry, the better we will understand what each party needs to stay
in business and support one another. This seems like a win/win and an
opportunity for continued creative growth.
Subscription is a market that I would rather not go into at this
time, because I don't see how to correct the massive loss in sales that
it has caused for the industry. When a buyer can stockpile images into
a library at 250 images per month for pennies per image, we have a
concern for the future of the entire industry. We are seeing more and
more of these images being used by multimillion-dollar companies to
promote their products.
I find it shocking that a major company or magazine cover would use
a micro subscription image to promote itself. Sellers no longer value
their ad campaigns like they used to, which suggests a shift in
advertising that we need to understand much better, if
we are going to find a balance for all three image markets. Of course,
this is a generalized observation; there are still many companies that
know the importance of using top-tier design agencies and imagery to
attract the greatest number of buyers. But there is still a change
taking place.
I am a big believer in diversification. I have as many images in as
many marketplaces as possible, so when financial shifts occur, I am as
covered as I can be. In addition, I always invest in emerging markets
to understand their place in our business model and its future. I have
collections I would rather create for because my goal in life is to
create beautiful images that support buyer’s needs. When returns drop
as dramatically as they have it makes it very difficult to continue to
create strong and powerful images for the market. It eats away at the
creativity that was once the strength of stock and creates a “copy war” of sorts, as many photographers
try to recreate each other’s best sellers instead of being passionate
about their own work and looking a bit more outside the box.
Frustrated photographers tend to blame their problems on those who
have adopted a different business model. I see this as a waste of time
and effort—an unproductive use of energy. As image makers, we need to
unite and stop blaming each other. As agencies and photographers, we
need to unite to maximize the return for everyone. If we start with
truly open communications between all groups, we will find that the
benefits and the team level will manifest positive results that will
sky rocket.
Our goal as agencies and photographers should be to work together to
keep some form of stability in our market. The actors guild did it
along with other companies and it keeps everyone still producing great
work and allows for the best of the best to rise to the top where buyer
benefit by having a variety of top quality products to choose from.
If the three models of stock, which are quite often owned by the
same large corporation, could start to try and set a unified standard,
this industry could thrive like never before. Remember, buyers need
images, and that is why stock has been such a lucrative business option
for so long. When the door opened for a battle of who can sell the most
images for the lowest price, the race to the bottom began. The drop of
stock pricing has also affected the client need to hire commercial
photographers as well. Check your local city: job opportunities are
down for commercial shooters as well.
| it has become clearly evident that image uniqueness and growth of creativity are slowing, as photographers mastery of their craft gives way to a growing reliance on the next new plugin that can make their photos more interesting. |
Another option that has potential is agencies giving higher returns
to their photographers through a larger share of royalties. This would
encourage the production of more high-quality imagery and help foster
the best photographers for tomorrow’s market. Current returns are at a
point where old-school stock shooters are quitting and new
photographers have stopped going to school to learn their craft or
apprenticing under an already successful professional. We can still
create beautiful image, and the slow loss of professional education and
competence is partially offset by the growth in photographic
software—but I feel as artists we are moving towards a group of
copycats that have little understanding of the business or been given
the most fertile soil to grow in.
In the 13 years I have been in stock, it has become clearly evident
that image uniqueness and growth of creativity are slowing, as
photographers mastery of their craft gives way to a growing reliance on
the next new plugin that can make their photos more interesting.
HDR (high dynamic range) imaging is a great example.
Done well, it produces images that are easier for the photographer to
create and can be extremely beautiful. Yet the photographer still needs
the understanding of design and composition to truly bring the image to
life. That is extremely important to the buyer, but it seems to be
slightly threatened at this time. Combine education and mentoring with
the new tools that we have available in the market, and we could be
exceeding everyone’s expectations of what the mind can produce when it
comes to photos—on an industry-wide, massive scale, as opposed to just
the handful of truly talented people we have at this time.
To conclude, if the pricing structure and the split between agency
and photographer can be altered by a small margin, and if we work
towards getting the next generation of photographers back to school or
into mentoring programs, our industry would not only generate higher
revenues, it would also produce work that inspires both buyers and
photographers.