Features
Mr. Stock Smarty Pants weighs the merits of content vs. distribution for stock photographers
Finally, it’s here: a new year…a new outlook…a new President…a new opportunity to apply to Congress for a bailout! Yes, I can reveal to you, my loyal readers and confidantes, that Mr. Stock Smarty Pants invested considerable time and energy over the holidays figuring out just the right angle to use in applying for his own, personal “bridge loan.” And, unlike Sarah Palin’s bridge-to-nowhere, this bridge is going to carry MSSP right into a brand new condo in Aruba! And hey, why not? Why are a bunch of overpaid idiots who have run The Big Three right into the ground more deserving of millions of dollars from the public trough than a fellow like me who has unselfishly devoted his life to helping photographers around the world figure out how to cash in on their photos? OK, OK…maybe I haven’t devoted my whole life to that endeavor…maybe it’s been more like a half hour every few weeks…still, I think it’s my constitutionally-granted right to get my own little stimulus package (though I must admit that I normally prefer to get my stimulus from my buddy Hugh Hefner’s overflow). But, as always, I have a back-up plan: if the bailout scheme falls through, I just might embark on a whole new career…politics! Can you say: SENATOR Stock Smarty Pants of Illinois? Well, enough about me, and on to your trivial little problems…
-------------------------------
Dear Mr. Stock Smarty Pants:
I had an almost knock-down, drag-‘em-out fight with a small group of photographers at a local watering hole on New Year’s Eve. We were arguing, somewhat vehemently, about whether success in stock is based on content or distribution. I argued that it was all about content: if you don’t have great pictures, no one’s going to buy them. Some of my “opponents” in this debate took the view that in order to be successful in stock you have to have the “right” distribution for your stock pictures, and that even mediocre images can sell if they can find their way into effective distribution channels. MSSP, you are the all-knowing, all-seeing expert on this stuff: am I correct that it’s all about the image (hey, wouldn’t that be a great name for a website???), or do I have to eat crow and make nice with my alleged friends???
Cordially,
Larry From Baltimore
-------------------------------
Dear Larry:
Oh, my…the horror! You spent New Year’s Eve with a bunch of photographers? What, you couldn’t get a date? OK, so maybe you’re so unattractive and uninteresting that no girl will go out with you…still, haven’t you ever heard of an “escort service”? I have no idea what possessed you; the concept of wasting such a (potentially) fun holiday evening arguing about the stock picture industry with a bunch of guys strikes me as the epitome of desperation. Then again, you DO live in Baltimore, so we must make allowances.
Your question, of course, goes right to the heart of the metaphysical essence of stock photography, and I have to tell you that I have both bad news and good news for you: the bad news is that I cannot declare you the winner of your argument; but, the good news is I cannot categorically declare your pals as the winners, either (though they may actually be just a bit more right than you…more on this later). Let me elaborate:
This whole content vs. distribution argument smacks of the old chicken-and-the-egg conundrum, or the eternal debate over which is more important, heredity or upbringing, as if one carries more weight than the other. Simply saying “Well, they’re BOTH pretty darn important,” while reasonably accurate, also has just a hint of cop-out to it. So, let’s examine both aspects of your little holiday contretemps and see if we can arrive at a reasonable conclusion (or at least one that makes me look like the genius that I am).
By “content” I am inferring that you are talking about the actual subject matter of a photograph and its execution (framing, composition, style, etc.), rather than simply referring to what most normal people would call “photographs” (as when someone says “I produce visual content,” which of course is far cooler than saying you make “photographs,” in which case you’d just sound like an ordinary schmoe rather than a puffed-up “creative type.” You’ll often overhear discussions about “visual content” between individuals who spend an inordinate amount of time staring at their iMacs at Starbucks).
So, the type of “content” that we’re addressing here is the “what” and the “how” of an image, as in “What’s that? Oh, it’s a picture of (fill-in-the-blank)” and “How did he get such a great picture?”
Does subject matter (content) count for much in stock photography? You bet it does! What you shoot is critical in determining the potential audience for your images and thus their sales potential. For example, you might decide that you’re only going to take pictures of World War I fighter planes, because that’s what really floats your boat, in which case I’d say: if that’s what you’re truly passionate about, go for it, but don’t quit your day job, because there aren’t a whole lotta professional picture buyers running around looking for images of Fokkers or Sopwiths. On the other hand, if you work well with people and find capturing of-the-moment lifestyle images an invigorating challenge, you would be creating images for one of the very best-selling stock subject sectors. But remember, in stock, virtually EVERYTHING is a trade-off: the guy shooting vintage fighter planes probably doesn’t have a lot of competitors trying to visually capture those same subjects, whereas the lifestyle shooter’s pictures are going to be competing with a plethora of stock shots from myriad other photographers.
OK, so we’ve determined that what you shoot counts for something, but it’s not the whole story by any means, which brings us to “how” you shoot it, and that includes factors such as: how do you compose the image? Do you shoot it in black and white or color? Do you use any sort of filtration (such as soft focus) or shoot it “straight”? Do you shoot it during the day or at night? Indoors or out? Stop-action or blurred? With people or without? With available light or strobes? You get the idea: the “how” of taking pictures are all of those creative decisions that you make right up to the moment that you trip the shutter, and then even later when you process the images in a program like Photoshop. And this part of the process is just as critical as your initial decision regarding what you’re going to shoot because the answers to the “how” questions will determine whether or not your images a) stand out from your competitors’ images of similar subject matter, and b) grab the attention of those all-important picture buyers.
So, shooting esoteric subject matter may give you an advantage over your competitors simply due to the scarcity of similar material, but potential buyers may be just as sparse; on the other hand, shooting more commonplace subject matter increases your odds of finding buyers but also increases competition, which therefore puts a real premium on shooting images that are distinctive due to their execution. In other words, the content of your images matters…quite a bit.
But (ah, there’s always one of those, isn’t there?)…
Let’s say you decide to create stock images of some subject sector that’s in constant demand in the marketplace, such as sports and recreation. And let’s say you hire some models, and stylists, and an assistant, and rent a whole bunch of lighting gear, and you end up shooting a whole bunch of really GREAT sports action shots that have a ton of sales potential.
Whoopee-do.
You know what “potential” is worth on the open market? Zippo, my friend. So until you get those images with all of that great “content” into the marketplace
and in front of the “right” potential buyers, all you’ve got are some nice pictures, swell memories of that cute little blond stylist you used on the shoot and a stack of production bills. And this, Larry, is where your buddies’ argument about the supremacy of distribution starts to make some sense. Let’s say that Photographer X shot some lifestyle images very similar to yours in terms of content, but perhaps not with your slick production values and keen eye and therefore a notch down in quality. You win the content contest! But, don’t count Photographer X out…he just happens to be with one of the world’s largest picture agencies, and therefore his not-so-great pictures are going to be marketed to and seen by top picture buyers in markets throughout the world while your superior images are placed with the Podunk Stock Agency, where they’ll be aggressively marketed to a picture editor at an animal husbandry magazine in Nebraska and the art intern at the We Be Ads advertising agency in Tuscaloosa.
Are you starting to smell where this is headed???
Making truly great, distinctive stock images with a style all your own is vital in today’s stock market but that’s only half the battle and, in some ways, may actually be the easiest part of the process (though by no means easy!). Remember “Field of Dreams”? “If you build it, they will come.” I’m afraid there is no corollary for stock photography, like “If you take great stock shots, art buyers will beat a path to your door.” It would be outstanding if the world really worked that way, but it doesn’t: somehow, some way, you have to proactively get your images seen by the people in a position to pay money for them. That could mean working with a traditional sort of stock picture agency, or working with an online image marketer, or selling images directly to buyers, but whatever method you employ, pro-active “distribution” is the only way to close the deal and realize the latent sales potential sitting there in your images, and the better and more extensive that distribution is, the better your odds of making sales.
Gosh, Larry, we’ve really started the year out on an unusually philosophical plane, going right to the heart of what makes for success in stock, and I’d really love to carry this on further by addressing the epistemological implications of stock photography, but I’m afraid I have to wrap things up and wait for my friend Godot to drop in.
Mr. Stock Smarty Pants, a full-time expert in the global professional picture industry and part-time chief of security for Britany Spears, answers your questions about the business side of stock photography on sporadic Mondays, or whenever the mood strikes him, on About The Image. Although MSSP travels the globe on a regular basis in pursuit of additions to his rare coin collection, your question regarding anything about the stock photo business will be forwarded to him and, so long as Mr. Stock Smarty Pants is both conscious and within reach of an Internet café, he will consider responding to you in an upcoming edition of About The Image. E-mail your questions to: . Oh, and MSSP categorically denies any affiliation whatsoever with the company called Stock Answers LLC ®.
Posted in: Features, Mr. Stock Smarty Pants, Photographers
Comments(1)
post a comment »dow futures, February 02, 2009 [#]
Do you use any sort of filtration (such as soft focus) or shoot it “straight”? Do you shoot it during the day or at night? Indoors or out? Stop-action or blurred? With people or without? With available light or strobes? day trading stocks