Editorial: Microstock in Context
While I think it’s fascinating that the Microstock phenomenon seems to dominate both industry-related blogs and external sources covering the world of stock photography these days (Hello Wired!), I think it makes sense to add to the discussion about Microstock’s potential long-term impact on the industry by offering the following points:
- The sheer volume of imagery being ingested and offered by these companies means that the vast majority of the images necessarily lack the quality required to compete with images offered via the higher-end, “traditional” portals and suppliers, which is always going to have an impact on the perceptions of image buyers/researchers and discerning graphic designers. Sure, end users love a bargain, but they also love not burning money by having to spend precious time sorting through substandard imagery.
- The perception of Microstock being more affordable than “traditional” Royalty-Free (or Rights-Managed, for that matter) is somewhat misguided. One of the most impressive recent RF offerings is Veer’s “Fancy” collection. Customers can purchase up to 90 extremely high-quality images (Fantastic models! Great Lighting! Impeccably Photographed!) for $699.00, which works out (in the case of 90 images) to less than $8.00 per image (and these collections are among the most expensive in the RF market). Microstock pricing for images with this level of technical quality typically range from $3.00 to $50.00 per image. Also, although single-image prices for “traditional” RF are typically much higher than Microstock, unpublished rates (in other words, deeply discounted prices) are commonly offered to publishers, educational institutions and corporate clients. So, to some degree the notion of “Microstock” pricing is neither new nor vastly different from “traditional” stock pricing.
- Finally, I think Microstock is actually healthy for our industry, because what it essentially does is help to differentiate imagery that is easy/inexpensive to produce (and, as a result, shouldn’t be costly) from imagery that is more difficult/expensive to produce (and necessarily costs more). Stylistically, Microstock seems to be dominated by imagery with a late 80s sensibility (which is perfect if you’re working on a project along those lines), which makes even the most recently-released images seem dated as soon as they hit the web. I think it's helpful to "traditional" stock photography producers to be able to demonstrate the differences between Microstock and "traditional" stock imagery.
In conclusion, while I think the Microstock phenomenon is interesting and news-worthy, and has certainly brought a new element to the stock photography industry, it’s obvious that there are also huge limitations to its potential. At the moment, from what I’ve read, Microstock accounts for somewhere around 2-3% of the market after a few years of high-profile features and worldwide advertising, which is certainly an accomplishment, but hardly evidence that the sky is falling.
Derick Rhodes is the the founding Project Manager for fStop Images. For more information about the author click here to visit the Derick Rhode's bio.
Comments
Derick,
I was wondering about that 2-3% figure. Is that 2-3% of revenue ($$) or volume (number of pictures licensed)?
If it’s revenue then I agree that the sky is not falling.
If it is volume then it could be possible the sky might be falling. There are a couple of big “ifs” though....
Compared to the past how many of those licenses that are now going to microstock would normally have been higher priced RF or RM? If the number is high then what we are seeing is the continued dilution of the overall revenue created in the stock imagery business. It seems the stock photo business continually keeps on licensing a higher and higher volume of imagery but the overall revenue for the industry never goes up and if Microstock really picks up it seems quite possible the overall revenue for the stock industry could be on it’s way down… and that is a bad thing for everyone in the business.
Posted by: Tim McGuire | July 20, 2007
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the comment. I think that Microstock probably accounts for 2-3% of the revenue worldwide, but there aren’t really any actual numbers to cite.
Otherwise, I think you could argue that Microstock is as vulnerable as any other segment of the industry. When you read what Microstock photographers have to say about income and competition, they don’t sound especially optimistic.
Here’s an interesting scenario: As visual search becomes accessible to regular end-users, everyone will be able to search for previous uses of RF and RM imagery on their own (before making a purchase).
When it comes to Microstock, I think potential customers could be put off by the countless low-end (spam, cheesy Websites, etc.) places in which the images have already appeared.
Of course, the same issue could have an impact on lower-priced RF. . .
Posted by: Derick Rhodes | July 21, 2007
Dear Derik,
Please allow me to disagree with you.
12 years ago I have seen same analysis and articles about RF vs RM. Exactly the same arguments were posted at that time against RF as we hear today against Microstock.
I think Microstock is the biggest revolution in the stock industry since RF attacked the sleepy RM market back than in 1993. It is still very early to predict what will be the extent of this revolution but it would certainly change the industry as it is today.
A customer can understand or accept a certain gap in pricing between RF and Microstock but when this gap is measured in hundreds percents, for many customers “budget” overrides “quality” and this without saying that quality of Microstock will certainly be improved over time.
How many times we heard in the first years of the RF industry that RF images are not quality images? That - customers don’t want that RF image they licensed will be bought by another company? That - photographers who shoot RF cannot earn their living?
Regarding your points so:
1. Microstock content Quality will improve. It’s only a matter of time and it will happen faster than we expect.
2. In no way you can compare RF and Microstock pricing $10 or $50 are not comparable with $350 or $550. Its known in the industry that most customers use 2 or 3 images out of a CD they buy so you cannot calculate price per image by dividing the cost of a CD with the total number of images. In addition the demand for a purchase of a whole CD is decreasing all the time.
My conclusion is that it’s our bad luck that Microstock is healthy for the customers not for us as an “industry”. But revolutions that are healthy for customers will eventually conquer the industry no matter how we will try to hide it or ignore it.
Noam Eshkol
CD BANK Israel founder
IN RF since 1993!
Posted by: Noam Eshkol | July 22, 2007
Derek, one point that I think you’ve missed is that microstock is also a unique distribution platform. While microstock only constituents 2-3% of the *existing* industry, this number is relatively small in relationship to the new market that is opening up on the web.
Posted by: Bryan Zmijewski | July 23, 2007
I’m sorry I have to disagree about the difference between RM and microstock. I produce a monthly IT magazine and I need to buy lots of IT/business type shots every month. I’ve just looked at the Veer collection and the one range that might have interested me probably had about 10 shots I might use which then means that the per shot cost is $79.90. With Microstock I search for what I need when I need it (rather than buying an entire CD and hoping I’ll use the shots) The maximum cost is about $20 per shot and amongst the dross there are still plenty of photographs that are as good as the Veer range.
Posted by: Julie Oakley | March 26, 2008