In the microstock world, when establishing prices for online image use
distributors should consider developing ways to distinguish between
personal or social media uses and those for commercial purposes.
Customers who use images for commercial purposes, and earn revenue as a
result, should be charged more than those whose image use is for
personal, non-revenue generating purposes. On the print side of the
business microstock sellers have already solved this problem to a
degree. They charge more for larger file sizes that are commonly needed
for print uses, and even more when print uses are expected to exceed
500,000 copies.
The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has reported that e-Book
sales in February 2011 were $90.3 million, up 202.3% compared to
February 2010. Higher Education sales for January and February
2011 were $406.9 million, down by 5.6% vs the same period in 2010. K-12
sales for the same two-month period were $173 million, a decline of
8.9% compared to 2010.
One way to satisfy customer demands for lower prices without reducing
overall operating costs is to cut the amount paid for the product you’re
selling. Over the past decade some stock photo distributors have used
this strategy very effectively. This article examines the effect that discount prices are having on the ability of stock photographers to earn a living.
Anyone who earns significant revenue from producing or licensing stock
images for educational purposes should be looking, as soon as possible,
for another line of business. Why? It is rapidly becoming
impossible to earn enough from licensing images for educational use to
cover the costs of producing them. For decades photographers have been
willing to license rights for limited usage of their images with the
understanding that if a greater use is made the photographer will
receive additional compensation. This system was originally developed to
help publishers limit their risk in the event that some of the book
they produced did not sell well or generate as much revenue as hoped.
Every photographer detests copyright infringers. When one of their
images is used without compensation they want to be paid not only their
normal fee for the use but a reasonable amount for chasing down the
infringer and enough penalty to insure that the infringer won’t do it
again. The goal is to give everyone incentive to be honest. But is going after infringers really accomplishing that goal and is it generating more business for the future?
The annual CEPIC Congress, to be held this year in Istanbul, is
scheduled for May 18 through 21, 2011, just a little more than a month
away. Image distributors from all over the world will be in attendance.
The CEPIC Congress will be the best opportunity in 2011 for image
distributors to meet some of the leading people in the visual
communications world – thought leaders, early adopters, owner managers,
entrepreneurs - and establish distributor relationships for your work.
I was recently asked by a RM photographer, “Can you provide some
insights into the kinds of volumes that are generated when images are
licensed at microstock prices?” This story provides some information and links as to how to learn more about microstock volumes.
Many photographers licensing images at RM and traditional RF prices
believe that it is impossible to have as profitable business licensing
images at Microstock prices. They argue that despite the fact that some
microstock photographers earn significant revenue due to sales volume
their expenses must be so high that there is very little profit for
their time invested. This story explores the validity of that theory.
In an IBISWorld market research report author Toon Van Beeck has identified the
10 Fasted Dying Industries in the United States. While every industry has a lifecycle – growth, maturity and decline – the fastest dying “standouts” include:
Photofinishing, #4 on the list,
Newspaper Publishing ,#7 and
Video Postproduction, #10. IBIS has a database of 700 industries and studied 200 that were in decline to determine which were in the worst shape.
Prior to 1976 a commissioning client owned the copyright to images
created by photographers. At that time the vast majority of images that appeared in
publications and advertising were created on assignment. The 1976 copyright law changed all that and gave photographers control of their work and the ability to license narrow and specific rights. Now, the business world is pushing photographers back into a model that
looks very much like pre-1976. The promise of a continual income stream
from our creations often seems distant and unobtainable.