8
THE EVOLUTION OF THE STOCK PHOTO INDUSTRY
October 28, 2006
Editors Note: In July I published a letter from Pino Granata that asked the question "Is There A Future For Stock Agents" (See Story (873). I outlined my thoughts in the story and a number of readers also supplied comments that are published at the end of the story. I have recently learned that Chris Ferrone, Editor of abouttheimage.com, wrote an editorial on the subject in January 2006. Chris is a former PACA President and has wide experience in the stock photo industry. His opinions are well worth considering and with his permission I have re-published the article here.
By Chris Ferrone
The reactions of many colleagues in our industry -- photographers and stock photo company managers alike -- to the changes brought about by new technology and innovative ways to use that technology have puzzled me for years. As a group, we have a history of spurning new, legitimate business models, rather than embracing them as a natural progression in an ever-evolving industry. Many will recall the stock photo establishment's rejection of the Royalty Free model when it first appeared in the early 1990's. For the most part, our industry now recognizes the legitimacy of the RF business model, but only after much wasted time fretting over RF and many missed opportunities to participate in what has become a dominant method of licensing stock images.
I say for the most part the industry has come around. To my amazement, complaints about the very existence of RF continue, as shown by Holly Hughes, the editor of Photo District News, in her Letter From the Editor in that magazine's November, 2005 issue. In a passage about the increasing use of RF imagery by clients, Ms. Hughes writes, "Photographers' rights advocates have long criticized royalty-free "clip-art" for commodifying the creative process and undermining the power of creators to control the use of their work." I agree with the statement, but it raises several issues:
For which photographers do these "advocates" advocate? Obviously not the many who gladly produce (and earn a healthy income from) RF imagery.
Royalty free imagery long ago surpassed the disparaging "clip-art" classification. RF has attained equal quality with RM both in terms of its artistry and its marketability which has resulted in the very phenomenon of increasing use of RF by clients described in PDN's Stock Issue.
That stock imagery has become a commodity is a symptom of the evolution of digital technology. The Internet has created conditions wherein large companies can deliver more images more efficiently than can individual photographers or small agencies.
Photographers may have less control over the use of their work. The control they once had, however, confined their access to smaller markets. The new Internet-based business models allow for wider distribution. At the same time, it gives that opportunity to a wider number of photographers, creating much more competition. In any case, photographers retain the option to stay out of the market entirely, if control is what they're after.
To put the anti-RF camp's narrow approach in a broader perspective: RM stock proponents complain that the RF photographers have sold out and have devalued RM imagery. If we accept that reasoning, then assignment photographers can legitimately impugn the RM photographers on the grounds that the RM photographers have devalued the assignment market. Illustrators, in turn, can legitimately criticize assignment shooters for reducing the market for illustrations. What could be more futile?
Now, several recently conceived business models take unfair heat as well. I refer specifically to three: custom stock, micro stock, and image subscription services.
Barring unlawful activities, the only fair test of the validity of a new business model is whether it's financially viable. Custom stock businesses, micro stock companies, and image subscription services have every right to exist as long as enough photographers participate and enough clients use the service that the businesses can succeed. Photographers and stock photo companies who don't like these models have every right not to engage in them, but they have no right to vilify their proponents.
In the process of starting and testing these new business models, photographers might get stiffed if the models fail, but such is the nature of doing business. Some might argue that the photographers will get stiffed even if the new models succeed. To that I respond that photographers, like anyone in business, have to watch their backs. This is not to say that it's OK for stock photo companies to mistreat photographers. Photographers must take sole responsibility, however, for what deals they make, who they make them with, and how they contend with non-fulfillment on the part of their deal partners.
I acknowledge this all sounds cold, but the business environment is a famously cold place, especially for artists. Artists must recognize that when they step into the realm of stock photography, they engage in what is as much a commercial activity as an artistic one. They become businesspersons and, as such, they subject themselves to a host of uncaring, numerical factors unmoved by considerations of art or emotion. These factors include:
The stock image market, like any open market, subjects its participants to the simple laws of supply and demand.
The large companies who dominate the selling of stock photography exist to serve their clients and create value for their owners/shareholders. They do not exist to serve photographers. (In fact, many stock photo companies no longer refer to themselves as "agencies" because that word signifies a legal obligation to look out for their photographers' best interests, a burden they no longer feel compelled to shoulder.)
To the extent that artists provide unique work and service the market demands, they will have control over pricing for their services. To the extent that their work is not superior to the work of many of their peers (at least in the eyes of clients) higher pricing becomes more difficult to support. [For more on this question, please see our feature story titled Value of a Professional Photographer.
The relative indifference on the part of the business world to the concerns of the art world is nothing new. One might say this does not speak well for our society. I won't argue with them, but that's not the point. Stock image suppliers serve their business interest better by addressing the realities of the market rather than trying to change the world, however admirable we may find the latter.
I do not question the difficult market conditions these new business models create for photographers and managers of traditional stock photo agencies. Nor do I suggest that the cliché admonition to "embrace change" necessarily makes life easier for those whose accustomed ways of making a living are threatened by them. I do, however, discourage stock photographers and my industry colleagues from wasting time and energy trying to hold back the tide of change driven by the Internet. Apart from the unfairness of it, attacking creative entrepreneurs for finding new and innovative ways to serve customers simply won't help. Taking a hard look at the market for one's own talent and product and determining how to find a place in that market makes for a more practical approach. Keep in mind, however, photographers and entrepreneurs alike can't get too comfortable -- another new business model may be right around the corner.