If you have decided on a career as a freelance photographer your vocation will be marketing and your avocation, or sideline, will be photography. The marketing aspect of a photography business involves identifying potential customers, creating customer interest in the services you offer and building strong customer relationships. It is not unusual for self-employed photographers to spend 80% of their time in the marketing and administrative aspects of their business and 20% actually producing pictures.

According to the World Association of Newspapers and Newspaper Publisher (WAN-IFRA) global paid-for daily newspaper circulation fell 0.8% in 2009 from a year earlier, to 517 million copies sold. Circulation in Europe is down 5.6% and 4.6% in North America. Circulation in Asia was up 1% with India and China seeing good growth. Advertising revenuewas down 25% in North America, 13.7% in Western Europe, 18.7% in Central and Eastern Europe.
 

Recently on LindedIn Jacintha van Beveren observed that “The old photography business model is gone,” and asked if the road to survival and future success is through “creativity and flexibility or stubborn protection?” In my opinion neither “more creativity nor stubborn protection” will work. Read this story to gain some insights as to why the old ideas no longer work and what might work in the future.

Photographers should be alert to any requests from textbook publishers for a new license to extend the print run on books already published. In many cases they may be entitled to high retroactive usage fees for copies already printed and distributed as well as a fee for the new books the publisher intends to publish.

When I published “Top Pros Stop Shooting” in my other newsletter Selling-Stock received an unusual number of comments from industry leaders. Most of those who commented had some disagreement with the positions I took in the article. Since PhotoLicensingOptions readers will have missed seeing these comments, I have printed them here along with an editorial response.

In the fall of 2009, I estimated the size of the worldwide market for still images and illustrations at about $1.45 billion. In the last 12 months sales overall have probably remained about the same with a few companies seeing sales growth, mostly from taking market share from those that have gone out of business. However, there have been some important changes in how those sales are divided among various marketing groups. I estimate that due to price increases gross revenue generated by iStockphoto in 2010 will be between $250 and $300 million.

Fine art photographs are an expression of the artist’s creative vision, perceptions and emotions more than a realistic rendering of a subject. Peers may admire such work and judges may occasionally award a dollar prize, but in most cases such images are not deemed to have commercial value. Actually profiting from the creative effort is rare for most photographers who produce such images. They produce them because they feel compelled to do so, not for the money. However, John Math is proving that it is possible to profit from selling fine art images if you take a business approach and develop a marketing strategy.

If you have decided you want to enter the microstock world you can’t get better advice than that given by Ellen Boughn in her new book Microstock Money Shots. She doesn’t promise that it’s easy, or that you’ll get rich quick, but if you follow her advice it will save you a lot of the frustration that comes from learning the hard way by trial and error.

On Linkedin’s Photography Industry Professionals discussion group, Brooke Fagel recently asked: “What’s it like to be a freelance photographer?” These select responses provide a comprehensive picture of what a photographer faces.

Two-year-old Pixmac is banking on its “rapid checkout and download” without the necessity for customers to engage in a complex registration process to help the company expand its customer base in North America.

Many rights-managed and traditional royalty free production companies are having trouble finding photographers willing to shoot for them. Many of the photographers who were RM and traditional RF stars five to ten years ago have given up shooting stock, or at the very least dramatically cut the number of images they produce annually and the amount they are willing to spend on models and production costs.

One of the things RM and traditional RF photographers tend to overlook is average price-per-image-licensed. Photographers worry when their images are licensed for low prices. They track their average royalty-per-image-in-file and the trends of their monthly royalty check. But is a lower royalty check the result of fewer images being licensed, a lower average price-per-license or both?.

When you are a freelance self-employed photographer, getting to the level of earning enough to support yourself and your family is difficult. But you know you can do it, because you are willing to work hard and you produce great, unique images that are better than anything offered by the competition. Here are a few basic principles of the photography business to remember.

When I was recently interviewed by Photonetcast, it became clear that my position on the best strategy for licensing rights to images is misunderstood, so it is time for another explanation. Granted, my position is radical, so bear with me.

In the last few years there has been dramatic growth in the use of images on the Internet, a market for images that virtually did not exist 10 years ago. Some believe that the potential for growth of the Internet is infinite, and that there will always be an ever-increasing demand for imagery.

I receive regular requests from photographers who want to know how they can license rights to the images they have created over the years on film. Here’s what I tell them. Licensing rights to images is very difficult in today’s market because there is such an oversupply available compared to the demand.

So far in this series we’ve learned there is declining demand for images that will be used in print, and growing demand for images that will be used online and in electronic formats. Photographers just starting out should be aware of the number of images already in online databases and recognize that any images they produce will be competing against those that already exist.

Though unit sales are declining for many iStockphoto sellers, many of the same people are also seeing significant revenue increases. Here’s how.

More and more people are producing pictures of a quality sufficient to satisfy the needs of many who want to use pictures. Thanks to the Internet -- and to a great extent microstock -- it is much easier than in the past for those who would like to earn a little money from the images they have produced to make contact with customers who might want to use them.

One of the first things to do if you want to sell your still photographs is to understand who the individuals and organizations are that might want to buy your images. You also need to be aware of the changing trends taking place in each market.

As little as five years ago, approximately 98% of all stock photo revenue came from print uses. There was little or no Internet and small business uses. Today about 20% of industry revenue comes from Internet and small business uses. The needs of these new customers were hardly addressed five years ago, as all traditional sellers focused on the high end of the market. Consequently, when someone wanted an image for these purposes they either took the picture themselves, or copied something off another Internet site and paid nothing for its use. In the last five years the demand for images that will be used electronically has grown dramatically.

Looking for some vacation reading material? Here are some suggestions. If you want to know how successful stock photographers do it, here are links to a series of interviews done over the last couple years. There are lots of different strategies. Some of these photographers are among the world’s most successful. Other’s like Todd Klassy and Holger Mette are relatively new to the business, and have adopted unconventional strategies that may be the wave of the future.

We received 251 individual responses to the online survey, posted in May, that was designed to measure photographer income trends. 81% of the respondents were from the U.S. and Canada. Almost 6% were from the United Kingdom. No other country had more than 5 respondents. For 133 of the 251, revenue was down more than 5% in 2009 than in 2008 (probably in most cases a lot more than 5%).  For 56, revenue was in the plus or minus 5% range and for the remaining 62 revenue was up more than 5%.  Forty-one of the 62 were in the early stages of their careers (1 to 4 years) when revenue can be expected to grow.

A 14-month review of data from the leading microstock supports the theory of the fastest-growing industry segment having reached a plateau, with flat unit sales and revenue growth resulting from price increases. The top 198 iStock contributors currently have a combined total of 567,324 images, or about 5.2% of the total collection. In the past six months the collection of this group has grown by an average of more than 10% per contributor with a total of 52,449 images added. Images belonging to these contributors represent 29% of total downloads in the last 14 months.

Shannon Fagan is a former President of the Stock Artists Alliance and an Advisory Board member of the Young Photographers Alliance.  In the past 18 months, he has attended every major industry conference to gather information on stock photography and licensing’s current direction.  He has contributed both Rights Managed and Royalty Free images directly to Getty Images, Corbis, Veer, Blend, Image Source, Cultura, Spaces, Tetra and many other brands. He has a deep knowledge of the stock photography industry, both from personal experience, and from his role helping other photographers develop their businesses. The following summarizes a few of his thoughts that were first published on Greg Ceo’s blog.

This story provides links to a series of articles that include the results of a photographer income survey, analysis of the sales of microstock photographers, the size of the market for stock photography and other data useful to understanding stock photo industry trends.

Stock image producers often have two misconceptions about subscription licensing services: They believe subscription licensing is simple and that for a very low monthly fee customers are allowed to use any image for any purpose. Neither is true.This story compares the subscription offering of Shutterstock and Britannica Image Explorer to drive home the point that two services can both be justifiably called subscription, but offer very benefits for both the customer and the image creator.

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. This article is a transcript of his presentation.

There are a number of stories on this site that will aid you in determining what to charge for a stock photo usage. Below is a list of story titles and the number of credits required to read the entire story. Click on the detailed description link and it will take you to a short description of what is included in the full story. Click on the Story link and it will take you directly to the story and deduct the appropriate number of credits from your account.

Universal Images Group, the distribution business unit of the Virtual Picture Desk (VPD), in conjunction with Encyclopaedia Britannica has launched a new photo service called "Britannica Image Explorer." This library of imagery launched with over 1 million images specifically edited for the needs of educational users. School systems will subscriber to this service and members of these organizations will have unlimited access to low resolution (150 dpi) versions of these images for the duration of the license. The license is for non-commercial educational use only. Any uses not covered by the subscription license must be licensed separately directly from the image provider.

Don’t tell Cathy Yeulet that you can’t make money in microstock. She operates Monkey Business Images, one of the most successful microstock production companies. However, unlike many microstockers, she is not new to stock photography. For many years, Yeulet operated a successful rights-managed business in Oxfordshire, U.K. When traditional royalty-free first began to take off, she created the BananaStock brand, which she sold to Jupiterimages in 2005 for approximately $19 million in cash. She started uploading images to iStockphoto in March of 2008.

Jim Pickerell is launching a new photographer income survey in an effort to determine general income trends for photographers in the last couple of years. We encourage photographers, worldwide, who have had any earnings whatsoever in the last two years from licensing rights to their images to answer this brief questionnaire.

Here’s the best chance you’ll ever have to win 100 Euros (or the equivalent in dollars). You can also respond to a photographer survey or have fun testing your knowledge of photography business trends. Check it out. It will only take a couple minutes.

U.S. educational publishers are admitting to more and more unauthorized uses during the past decade and quietly entering into out-of-court settlements with an increasing number of image suppliers for large numbers of uses. In cases where the original license fee was well under $1,000, publishers are now paying multiple thousands of dollars to settle claims.

If you are in the stock imagery business and want to stay current with worldwide industry trends the annual CEPIC Congress is a must event to attend. Held every year in early June - this year in Dublin, Ireland at the brand new Aviva Stadium - it was an opportunity to meet and greet industry leaders and exchange ideas. Traditionally CEPIC has been an organization focused on the needs of those who license rights to traditional customers, mostly larger commercial organizations. This year one day was devoted to a New Media Conference (microstock). This event was very well attended by traditional sellers, many still wary of microstock and not ready to embrace it fully, but also accepting that the $400 million a year business is a major force in the industry and here to stay.  

This story provides a list of useful articles that will provide the reader with a good background on the current state of the stock photography business and where it is headed.

U.S. educational publishers are admitting to more and more unauthorized uses during the past decade and quietly entering into out-of-court settlements with an increasing number of image suppliers for large numbers of uses. In cases where the original license fee was well under $1,000 the publishers are now paying multi-thousands of dollars to settle these claims.

Photographs are used commercially as single illustrations or in telling stories. Given the way the photography business is changing there is a declining demand for single illustrations at price points that can justify their continued production, but there is a growing demand for multimedia and video stories. This story explores this change in demand and points to new opportunities for those who want to earn their living in the photography profession. 

On LinkedIn’s ASMP group James Cavanaugh outlined the following client request, “A client wants you to create photographs that they can use on social network sites so they can "go viral" to promote their company. It means potentially countless people may use your copyrighted work,” and he asked “How would you approach such a request?”
This story provides my answer.

A few days ago we talked about oversupply of imagery, that that is not a problem if there is a huge and growing demand. Some people argue that because so many images are being used on the Internet there must also be a huge and unlimited future demand. We don't think so and this story will outline many of the reasons to believe that the demand for still, generic imagery is declining and why it will continue to decline. Even if you don't believe this to be true there are facts outlined in this story that you ought to consider.

In light of pricing declines for textbook use and publisher attempts to avoid paying for future electronic uses, some image producers ask: "Why don't all the sellers just say 'no'? Shouldn't the producer be setting product prices?"

In an effort to obtain updated information on revenue trends in the stock photo industry we will be conducting a revenue survey at the 2010 CEPIC International Congress and New Media Conference in Dublin that takes place June 9th to 13th. In a blind survey we will be asking representatives of every stock agency and stock image distributor to answer 5 brief questions on behalf of their company.

If you license rights to your photos for textbook use then here are a few articles you should read.

This story outlines 16 reasons to attend the 2010 CEPIC International Congress and New Media Conference in Dublin, Ireland takes place on June 9 – 13. This event is the premier annual event, worldwide, for those who produce and market stock imagery. It’s not too late to register. We will be reporting on this event later in June.

What’s the competition look like in terms of number of images available online? A year ago ImageShack, had 20 billion image and Facebook about 15 billion. In February 2010 it was reported that over 2.5 billion photos were being added to Facebook each month. News Corp’s PhotoBucket currently has more than 8.2 billion photos and Yahoo’s Flickr is in fourth place with over 3.4 billion. But are these numbers really important? What really counts are the number of images on Professional sites that have good keywording, trustworthy model releases and where some editing has been supplied. This story supplies the number of images that fall into this category.

A Russian photographer asks what subjects he should shoot for microstock in order to maximize his earnings. With hard work, he feels he can duplicate the results achieved by Yuri Arcurs, particularly because shooting in Russia can be much cheaper than Arcurs' Denmark location. Yet there are flaws to that logic.

A large percentage of the still-photo segment of the stock photography business is related to advertising—either licensing images for use in print ads, or licensing them for use in editorial products that are supported to a great extent by ads. The health of the stock photography business is directly related to the health of the print business. To understand what is likely to happen in the still photography business, it is important to have some understanding of advertising trends.

One of the leading producers of short form business profiles (videos of 45 to 75 seconds) is TurnHere.com. The company has a network of over 8,000 freelance videographers working in over 70 countries. It has produced more than 27,000 short videos (7,000 within the last 6 months) for local business around the world.

Alamy will no longer make financial information publicly available. Since Getty Images went private, the U.K. company's quarterly numbers have represented the only reliable sales data in the industry.

In addition to raising print quantities and extending license durations, textbook publishers are increasingly asking for the rights to publish the same information for the same time period on password-protected Web sites. While publishers intends to charge for those passwords, they expect content producers not to count such uses as part of the circulation.

From a stock photography point of view, the future is bleak for those trying to sell images for textbook use. This segment of the stock photography business is on what appears to be an irreversible downward spiral.

What is top-quality photography for a major advertising campaign worth? Evidently, art buyers at Campbell-Ewald, one of the largest advertising agencies in the U.S., think $2,500 for “all advertising” and “all print” rights is fair and reasonable, as evidenced by a recent negotiation for the use of one of Hans Halberstadt’s photos.

Is it time to institute a system of floor prices for the use of rights-managed images for editorial purposes? Is there any price so low—$50, $30 or $20—that the image creator would prefer not to make the sale? This article explores this issue and suggests a strategy that could benefit rights managed photographers and agencies alike.

A New York court has ruled that copyright registrations obtained by Corbis for images submitted by at least one photographer-contributor are invalid, in part due to Corbis’ failure to list the names of the photographers—the authors and owners of the copyrights in the registered images—on registrations submitted by Corbis. 

In addition to raising print quantities and extending license durations, textbook publishers are increasingly asking for the rights to publish the same information for the same time period on password-protected Web sites. While publishers intends to charge for those passwords, they expect content producers not to count such uses as part of the circulation.

A San Francisco-based photographer recently asked: "There is a lot of speculation about tablets like the Kindle and the iPad possibly leading the way for more image use and therefore a possible boon to stock-photo licensing. Do you have any thoughts on that?"

Books and education are changing. Consumer looking for information or entertainment will turn to "vooks" -- books they can watch, instead of the old paper kind they can only read or audio books where they can only listen to narration. These vooks blend text and video into a single integrated and uninterrupted reading and viewing experience that can be accessed and read on the Web or an iPhone.

For several years I have estimated that the size of worldwide market for still stock images and illustrations at about $1.8 billion. I’ve also claimed that overall stock photography has been a no-growth business despite the fact that some companies and individuals could point to growth. Now, at the end of 2009 I believe gross revenue for the industry is no more than $1.45 billion and it will probably continue to decline. The stories here break out various segments of the market and explain the overall trends.l

This story provides links to a five part series of articles designed to help photographers understand the major trends impacting the industry in 2010 and help them plan for the future. We outline some of the issues to consider, new business models to explore and things to focus on in order to have a profitable business. Following the first five stories are links to some additional articles on the business of stock photography that may be of interest.

As methods of supplying educational information to students change and schools adopt more and more electronic tools and techniques, photographers not only need to revise their image production strategies, but also to examine the way they will charge for their services in the future.

This story provides links to some of the stories on this site that may be of interest to someone new to the stock photography business, or someone who might to have a brief refresher course on some of the things that have been happening in the last few years. Many of these stories will also give you some idea of developing trends and what the future might hold.

In the next few years, there will be two major trends in the education business: There will be less demand for books as a teaching resource. Electronic “learning objects” will be used to a much greater degree in classroom and online instruction. Photographers who agree that these changes will occur, and who supply images to those producing materials for educational use, should begin to restructure their businesses and produce content that will be in demand by this new educational delivery system.

This is a list of 14 articles that will provide microstock photographers, or those considering contributing to microstock sites, some useful background and insights into the industry.

Sometimes there is a silver lining when your stock agency gets acquired or you get kicked out of the agency. For example, clients that previously licensed Stock Connection imagery through Jupiterimages now have to re-license them directly, because Getty Images has phased out some content.

Recently, I started a discussion entitled.“What are the future career opportunities in photography?” on several of the groups on Linkedin. The topic has engendered a lively and interesting discussion, and well worth some time in reviewing. This article contains a few of the highlights of the discussion. More can be found at the following Linkedin Groups: ASMP: American Society of Media Professionals - National; Photography Industry Professionals and Stock Photography Buy and Sell Images.

Twenty questions to test your knowledge of the photo licensing industry and its future potential.

The opportunity to interact with editors from publishing companies, picture researchers, stock agents and photographers at the American Society of Picture Professionals’ (ASPP) Reinvention weekend in Boston provided a clearer picture of where the business of producing images for publication is headed.  Here are a few of my take-aways from the three day conference.

Only a couple years a researcher for a major book publisher told me they would never use microstock for a textbook because of the difficulty of “securing rights.” That puzzled me because I knew that virtually all microstock images had solid releases. Because they are such sticklers for releases they often don’t accept some of the more candid editorial images that many book publishers tend to favor.

As newspapers and magazines fold, or at the very least tighten their belts, it is becoming harder and harder for freelance editorial photographers used to traveling the world to produce major enterprise stories or get financial backing for such coverage. Most picture stories now appear on newspaper and magazine web sites rather than in the printed publications. There are two advantages to this shift. First, it is possible to show more images and provide a more comprehensive look at the subject matter. In addition we are learning that a large number of readers are willing to spend time looking at these stories. Nevertheless, the question of how to fund such projects raises some serious issues. Read my comments and a response from Stephen Mayes, Director of VII Photo, a company that faces this problem every day.

For those who think that the use of photography in book publishing and for educational purposes will remain the same in this years ahead this story provides some numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau to consider. Significant changes can be expected in the near future.

The Obama administration, through the offices of  the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (USIPEC), Victoria Espinel, has recently requested input from interested parties as to how piracy and copyright infringement is affecting the U.S. economy. A key issue is the degree of unauthorized use. Getty Images says they identify approximately 42,000 unauthorized uses a year and Corbis says they identify about 70,000. PicScout, whose Image Tracker line of business searches the web for unauthorized photo use, says that in 2009 more than 80% of the images they located on the web on commercial sites were either used without a license, or beyond the terms authorized by the license. In addition, there were many unauthorized print uses, but for the most part there is no good way to track that volume at this time.

In January we published an analysis of the units licensed in 2009 by a group of iStockphoto’s most successful contributors and asked the question “Has Microstock Reached a Plateau?” The first quarter 2010 results seem to confirm this is the case. As a baseline, on June 1, 2009 we did a count of the total number of images licensed in May 2009 by a group of 196 out of the 250 top selling iStock contributors. (Information on some of the top 250 was not available.) There were 442,533 images licensed by this group in that month. Average monthly sales were up only 5% by the end of 2009, but they were down 1% to only 3.9% by the end of March 2010. See the full analysis and the implications for the future.

One of the key things to understand about stock photography is why some customers are willing to pay more than others to use an image. Most photographers want to believe customers will pay more when the image is of “better quality”, or more technically perfect. They want to believe that when they increase production values, build better sets, use better looking models, use people who look more “real” and when they generally spend more to produce an image customers will pay more to use it. They want to believe that if an image is shot from a helicopter, or if they had to travel around the world to get it that it should command a higher price. They want to charge more for niche subject matter.

If stock photography as a profession is going to survive we’re going to have to find a way to develop a two-tier pricing system. One tier would be for commercial use of images and the other for personal and small use. Microstock sellers have proved in the last few years that there is a huge group of customers out there who use images for personal and very small business uses. They will pay something to use images, just not very much. The problem with microstock is not that they sell images to these customers, it is that they sell image files to large commercial users for the same low prices they charge those with small budgets.

What an image is worth to a customer depends entirely on the customer’s intended use. The size of the file delivered has very little to do with how an image might be used, or the value the customer will receive from using it. Granted, there are limits as to how a very small file can be used. But, there are many ways with widely varying values that a medium sized file can be used. The biggest problem with royalty-free licensing, and particularly microstock pricing, is not that it prices certain uses very low, but that the system of pricing by file size has tried to ignore use in an effort to achieve simplicity.

There is a persistent idea among many image creators that a photographer somehow devalues his work if he ever licenses it for low prices. There are several things to think about in this regard.To begin with, if you are going to license your work as right-managed (RM) “based on use” and if you are going to allow a stock agency to license your work then the images will always be licensed at multiple different price points. And the stock agencies will not establish a floor price below which they will not license your image for some small use. Read this story for more things to think about.

test

After publishing my article on a Two-Tier Pricing System I’ve had a series of discussions with several photographers. There seems to be some general misunderstanding as to why I think such a system is in the best interest of all photographers regardless of whether they currently license their work as rights-managed (RM), traditional royalty-free (RF) or Microstock. Two-Tiers is not just another pricing model. The whole purpose is so all images can be made available to all customers at appropriate prices depending on how the customer intends to use the image.

Anyone who has heard the term microstock has probably heard of Yuri Arcurs. He is recognized as the worlds most successful microstock photographer, but is much more than just a photographer. He is a brilliant businessman adept at marketing, self promotion and managing a large staff. He is a production company with a full-time staff of about 30 and another 20 part-timers who work at least 10 hours a week. Included as part of his staff are 4 or 5 other photographers who actively shoot and whose work is marketed under the Yuri Arcurs brand.

Chris Barton, managing director of Photographers Direct has written a humorous article on the multiple use of microstock images that shows five young people—three women and two men—promoting the products and services of a dozen different companies, with copy that would lead the reader to believe that these people were employees of all these companies. Every rights-managed photographer will enjoy this piece.

Chris Barton, Managing Director of Photographers Direct has written a humorous article on the multiple use of microstock images that shows five young people, three women and two men, promoting the products and services of a dozen different companies with copy that would lead the reader to believe that these people were employees of all these companies. Every rights-managed (RM) photographer will enjoy this piece.

A huge percentage of all professional imagery licensed is used in one way or another to promote a product or service. But advertisers have recognized that the old ways of promoting are no longer working. They are aggressively searching for new and better ways to reach consumers. Their decisions dramatically impact future demand for photography as will as where and how it will be used.

Alamy salesfor the 2009 were $22,864,000, down 27% from 2008. Fourth quarter sales were down less than 2% compared to the third quarter of 2009 and were down 14% compared to the fourth quarter 2008. British pound and Euro sales were up slightly compared to the third quarter of  2009, but U.S. dollar sales were down 12% compared to Q3 2009 and 22% compared to Q4 2008.

In response to “Stock Photo Lottery,” Bill Bachmann said: “I don’t know where you get the idea that 1% of images are sold are RM. I think you are pulling that figure out of a hat.” This story provides a step by step process as to how I arrived at that figure.

“RM, RF or Micro” received some interesting comments. Indeed, usage-based pricing is not going away; there will always be some demand for exclusive uses, for which customers will be willing to pay significant amounts of money. The question is how much and whether or not it is wise for most photographers to chase these customers. Stock photography is like a lottery. In the lottery, there are different games with different levels of risk. In games where you can earn the most for your investment, the odds against winning are huge. When the chances of earning something are better, the potential for big winnings is usually not that great. No matter which game you play, there is no guarantee you will earn more than you invest. A few players will hit the jackpot. Many of today’s photographers would have a better chance of profiting if they were to invest in lottery tickets rather than producing images for licensing as stock.

Katy von Brandenfels, of BigCheesePhoto won €100 our May/June PhotoLicensingOptions’ contest designed to encourage those interested in the business of producing and licensing rights to images to sign up for this FREE weekly email every Saturday.

I was recently asked: “If you were shooting stock (hey, maybe you are…), would you be shooting for rights-managed,
Personally, I think rights-managed licensing is on the way out. It would be nice if customers were willing to pay to use an image based on the value they receive, or to some degree on the cost of production. But that day seems to be passing. No matter what the subject matter, too many good alternatives are available at much lower prices. Why should customers pay more? Part of the theory behind rights-managed licensing is that customers need exclusive rights to certain images. Some do, but there are entirely too many similar images competing for those occasional exclusive sales.

In the near future the vast majority of professional photographers will be unable to earn enough from producing stock images to offset their cost of production. There have always been two major problems for stock image producers. (1) Even in the best of circumstances, the photographer has no idea how many customers will want to use the image he/she plans to produce. And (2) the photographer has no idea how many other photographers are simultaneously something very similar, or something that would better fulfill the customer’s need. If you have no idea of the revenue that might be generated from sales how do you manage costs?

Getty photographer Carlos Sanchez Pereyra recently asked on LinkedIn what others thought was the “best way to sell Stock.” There is no question that Getty makes more gross sales than any other brand, but when royalties are divided among all the various photographers they represent (and we must consider all the photographers represented by the more than 100 third-party “image partner” brands that sell through the Getty site) Getty may not be the best place for most photographers. This article offers a few things to think about when trying to determine your best way to sell stock.

In looking ahead to 2010 photographers should focus on how they will adapt to the new realities of the photography business. On his blog John Harrington recently argued that microstock has not created new markets for photography, but rather “devastates existing ones.” This plays to the frustration of many professional photographers who have devoted years of education, experience, and capital investment to a trade (dare I say art), where the value of what they produce is suddenly worth a fraction of what it was just a couple years ago. However, there is no denying that microstock has also opened up a market that professional photographers had not addressed previously.

There are two ways to approach shooting for the stock photo market. The first is to take pictures of whatever you like and hope that someone will want to pay you money for the images you love. The more business like approach is to try to determine what customers want and produce that kind of imagery. One thing that is beneficial in this regard is that the subject matter in demand has not changed. What customers wanted five, ten or twenty years ago is still in demand today. Images need to be updated and current, but in general subject needs remain the same and in relatively the same proportions. In broad terms the images in greatest demand are model released people in business and lifestyle situations, but that statement is so non-specific as to be almost useless. It can also be misleading when the subject matter being considered does not include people because there is some demand for that also.

With all the free information available on the Internet why would or should anyone want to pay for information? Many consumers believe that writers should give away their work in order to build a following of customers who will then pay them for some other product or service they provide. Most would acknowledge that some effort and expense is required on the part of the creator to produce good, useful information, but often that is not deemed to be of any economic value. Photographers tend to supply information on their blogs as a way of getting customers to hire them for assignment work, for paid speaking engagements or as a way of selling a book. The other way to earn revenue is to generate enough traffic to your site that advertisers will pay to surround your information with ads in hopes that some or your popularity will rub off on them. Is giving away information the only way?

A friend who has been on the periphery of the photo industry for decades now works for a company that manages social media and search engine optimization for a variety of clients, including law firms. She said her office mates disagree on what they are allowed to do with pictures they find on news Web sites. She asked: “Are bloggers allowed to illustrate their blog entries with photos they find on news sites, such as a photo of a sinkhole? What are the rules about using editorial images in a blog post?”

After great success at producing and selling traditional rights-managed and royalty-free imagery for more than 25 years, Ron Chapple started producing microstock in 2006. He uploaded 5,000 images in February 2007 and aggressively produced images for microstock until early 2008. By September 2008, he had about 15,000 images in his iofoto collection, available on a non-exclusive basis through a number of microstock distributors. In October 2007, Selling Stock did a story outlining his early experience with microstock.

Using the figures from iStockcharts, we tracked monthly sales of 198 the top 250 photographers. This group represents about a quarter of 1% of iStock’s more than 80,000 contributors. Download numbers reported by iStockcharts are exactly the same as the numbers reported on iStock itself for each contributor, but information for approximately 50 of the top 250 is not made available publicly through iStockcharts.

This chart provides information for 198 of the leading contributors to iStockphoto. It shows the total number of downloads each photographer had as of May 1, 2009 and the minimum and maximum number of downloads the photographer had on December 31, 2009. We were unable to report exact figures for the period May through December because iStockphoto changed its reporting policy in June to only supply a greater than number that indicated the downloads were in a certain range. Using this data and interpolating for the first four missing months in the data we were able to make an estimate of the number of downloads each photographer had in 2009.

Photographs of many products and locations can not be used for any type of commercial purpose without a release. Blanket releases for images of these subjects are almost impossible to obtain. It is sometimes possible to get a release for a very specific, clearly defined use, but not for an undefined “stock use.” Therefore, if the stock photographer’s goal is to license rights to the images he or she produces the photographer may be better advised to avoid wasting time photographing this subject matter. In some cases such images may be used for editorial purposes.

Most professional photographers are adamantly opposed to the existence of Creative Commons’ licenses which allow free use of images rather than charging a fee for such uses. However, a widespread use of Creative Commons licenses may actually help establish in the minds of users the very important copyright law principle that "All Rights (are) Reserved” by the creator or copyright holder of any work, and that it is left to the creator to specify who has what rights to make what uses of the work and at what cost.

For much of the past decade textbook publishers have tended to license rights to print a minimum number of copies of the books they published and then proceeded to greatly exceed the authorized press run without informing the content creators. Only recently have photographers become aware of this problem which we discussed in previous articles: Declining Textbook Market For Photographers and Publishers Owe For Past Uses. This articles provides a list of federal court actions for infringement of copyright that have been initiated against the major publishers in the last few years and names the photographer plaintiffs and the publisher defendants.

To the degree your photographic business is based on revenue from advertising, there will never be an economic recovery. It is time to begin looking for other revenue options if you intend to maintain your current lifestyle. Certainly, if your pictures are used in magazine, newspaper or television ads that are designed to appeal to the masses, you can expect a slow but steady decline in those uses. If you produce editorial content for magazines or newspapers, there will also be a continued decline in such uses, because these products are supported to a great extent by advertising revenue. If your pictures are used in any way to promote products or services that are potentially used by a broad cross-section of the population, you can expect a decline in such promotions.

Should a photographer license his work as royalty-free (RF) for a 20% royalty or rights-managed (RM) for a 40% to 50% royalty? The answer seems simple, but maybe not. In a previous article I pointed out that there is absolutely no justification for a distributor paying only a royalty of only 20% when an images is licensed as RF and 40% when it is licensed as RM. It doesn't cost the distributor any more to license an image as RF than as RM. In fact, if anything, because negotiating time is involved in making some RM sales it may actually cost the distributor more to license rights to an RM image than to an RF one. Thus, if we were basing the royalty share solely on the relative contributions of the distributor and the creator to the sale, the RF royalty should be higher, not lower, than the royalty for RM.

In January2010, pacaSearch will roll out a major marketing campaign to picture buyers to promote its new pacaSearch software. At a recent demonstration at PictureHouse in New York, Lee Horton, Multimedia Editor of K12 Inc. said, “Learning about the functionality and usefulness of [pacaSearch] put a big smile on my face. As a photo editor and art buyer, I search multiple sites daily. This tool puts more control in my hands. I can keep the results pages in tabs with fewer keystrokes, page toggles and site crashes. The relative percentages, predictive text and term definitions create a tight, clean search environment. With the launch of pacaSearch, I can successfully and accurately find imagery in less time, with less hassle, while having more agency resources at my fingertips. Thank you, PACA.”

On his blog “Thoughts of a Bohemian" Paul Melcher says that Getty Images is now offering publishers “new low prices in exchange for being the sole provider.” Assuming that’s true, it could easily backfire on Getty, and may point to a need for photographers to revise their marketing strategies.

The following are some principles that apply all types of stock photo sales. The base numbers on the pricing schedules on this site are average rates for one-time, non-exclusive use of a single image by the smallest of companies, and assuming that the image has no unique factors that would make it more valuable. These numbers are equal to U.S. dollars and are reasonable rates for commercial use of the average professionally produced stock image. Other currencies should adjust accordingly. Photographer should be aware of the existence of similar microstock images that might fulfill the customer's requirements if exclusivity is not an issue for the customer. In such cases the photographer may find it necessary to negotiate a lower fee.

ZenithOptimedia (Publicis) says that global ad spend for 2009 will be 10.2% compared to 2008, but that in 2010 it is expected to be up 0.9% compared to 2009. Group M (WPP) thinks 2009 spending will only be down about 6.6% from 2008 levels and expect the 2010 to be 0.8% above 2009. There is no expectation that ad spending will get back to 2008 levels anytime soon.

One of the most interesting things to happen at the recent Picture Archive Council of America International Conference was the presence of Google product manager Matt Zitzmann, who focuses on image-search monetization. As one of the speakers, Zitzmann demonstrated the latest developments in Google’s image-search algorithm and said he was there to learn more about the stock photo industry

It appears that additional compensation is owed for many of the textbook uses that have occurred over the past decade. Until about two or three years ago, nearly all requests for invoices from publishers were for print runs of 40,000 or less. We are now discovering many cases where significant numbers of books were printed in excess of the circulation on which image licenses were based.

From a stock photography point of view, the future is bleak for those trying to sell images for textbook use. This segment of the stock photography business is on what appears to be an irreversible downward spiral. This article explains in detail what has been happening in the textbook business in the last few years and looks ahead to the changes that are likely to take place in the future.

Travel photographer Bill Bachmann is an ardent advocate for basing stock image pricing on usage (the rights-managed model), not on file size (the royalty-free and microstock models). In 2009, Bachmann is on track to earn almost $1 million from licensing his travel and lifestyle images. Over 80% of Bachmann’s income will come from more than 50 agencies that represent his work around the world; the rest is from direct sales. For most of the last 25 years, he has grossed over $1 million in stock sales per year.

dfgdfg

Is Flickr a place for a professional photographer to display his work and sell images? Todd Klassy thinks so. Right now he is an amateur devoting maybe 3 hours a week to shooting and another 6 in post production and studying photography. After the first of the year he intends to quit his job of 17 years and start working full time as a photographer.

Alamy sales for the third quarter of 2009 were flat compared to the second quarter, but were down 30% compared with Q3 2008. U.S. Dollar and Euro sales were up slightly compared to Q2 2009, but UK sales were down about 5% from what they were in Q2. Sales for the first three quarters of 2009 were down 30% compared to the same period in 2008.

Current established usage fees are so low that many photographers and small agencies that have specialized in selling to textbooks have either gone out of business, or are on the verge of doing so. Nevertheless, the excessively low prices were still not enough for the publishers. To press their advantage it now appears that many of the larger publishers have systematically, not occasionally or accidentally, printed many more copies of books than they licensed rights to print.

From a stock photography point of view the future is bleak for those trying to sell images for textbook use. This segment of the stock photography business is on what appears to be an irreversible downward spiral. A few photographers and agencies have specialized in producing images for textbooks, but for most it has always been a secondary activity. It is hard to point to anyone who has become rich by producing or selling images for textbook use.

As prices for stock photo uses drop, the joke has been that pretty soon, publishers will start asking photographers to pay for publication of pictures. That idea may not be as ludicrous as it sounds. The time may not be too far off. In the last few weeks, photographers and stock agents have been receiving the following letter from India.

Textbook publishers now have total control when it comes to setting prices and have no reason to want a dialogue with sellers on the subject of pricing. However, past uses is one area where publishers might want to open a discussion, seeing the outcomes of several recent court cases.

On Nov. 4, the motion of four creative industry groups and several individuals to join on the creators' side of the Authors Guild et. al. v. Google was once again denied on appeal. Organizations that petitioned the court to intervene in the class action against Google included the American Society of Media Photographers, the Graphic Artists Guild, the Picture Archive Council of America and the North American Nature Photography Association. Chief among U.S. District Judge Denny Chin's grounds for denying their request was its untimely nature.

According to Corbis chief executive officer Gary Shenk, total stock-photo revenue will decline only slightly by 2012. Corbis estimates the total 2007 market at $2.3 billion, predicting it will decline to $2.2 billion by 2012. However, this is no reason to be sanguine, as the same total will be divided differently among various industry segments. In addition, this analysis was completed during the summer, prior to the more recent economic disruption.

The story provides a rough estimate of iStockphoto sales and revenue growth since the company was acquired by Getty Images in early 2006. The figures for the years 2006 and 2007 are reasonably accurate because Getty Images was a public company during this period and reporting a great deal of detail about their operations. After the company went private in early 2008 it became more difficult to accurately estimate downloads and revenue.

Jim Erickson breaks all the stock photography rules and yet is one of the world’s most successful sellers of stock images. Pick any strategy that everyone agrees is the key to success in stock, and Jim Erickson is probably doing the opposite. He sells stock to clients rather than through agencies. Erickson never licenses rights to an image for less than $350, and the average license fee is about $1,800. He produces an annual print catalog and distributes it to only 20,000 top buyers. His gross revenue from stock sales in 2008 was over $2 million and he couples his stock business with an assignment business that grosses an additional $2 million. Read more about how he does it.

For most of this year I have been tracking the number of downloads for 117 of the 150 most productive contributors on iStock. (I have been unable to identify the other 33 in the top 150.) Total downloads of the 117 during the last seven months represent about 17% of all iStock contributor downloads. Sixty-five of the 117 contributors have seen a slight decline in average downloads-per-month since March.

Kelly Thompson recently said, "iStockphoto has many contributors making anywhere from $40,000 to $500,000 a year." For most of 2009 I have been tracking the number of downloads for 117 of the 150 most productive iStock contributors. While Thompson's statement is technically accurate it may lead contributors to believe that it is easier to earn $40,000 a year selling microstock than is actually the case. The figures in this article give a better picture.

In August BIA/Kelsey reported that digital and online’s share of local advertising in actual dollar terms had jumped from 22% in 2008 to 37% in 2009. Earlier in the year the survey organization said that total advertising spend would drop from $155.3 billion in 2008 to $144.4 billion by 2013.

It’s time to revise previous industry estimates based on what has happened in the stock photo business in the past year. For several years I have estimated that the size of worldwide market for still images and illustrations at about $1.8 billion. I’ve also claimed that overall stock photography has been a no-growth business despite the fact that some companies and individuals could point to growth. Now, at the end of 2009 I believe gross revenue for the industry is no more than $1.45 billion and it will probably continue to decline. This story details how I arrived at this number.

This list of the world's major stock agencies is divided into three different groups based on my estimates of the gross revenue generated by each of these companies. Group A lists companies with revenue greater than $20 million Groups B is companies with revenues between $5 and $20 million and Group C has revenues between $1 and $5 million.

A previous article in this “Business Planning for the Future” series noted that future growth in demand for images is a widely debated subject among stock industry professionals. In my view, traditional customers do not seem to have any growth potential, and there are also indications that growth in demand for low-priced imagery might have reached its natural level. Industry veteran Leslie Hughes—formerly of The Image Bank and Corbis, currently the principal of has offered an alternate point of view.

The previous article in this series (Business Planning For The Future: Creative Stills In Steady Decline) focuses on why the current paradigm does not work for solo photographers but misses the fact that growing image uses also offer opportunities. For the stock photo industry, the issue is not lack of demand but rather the lack of Google, Gillette and Apple-like innovation when it comes to developing a business model that takes advantage of the rise in image uses.

If you do not plan to retire before 2015, and the money you earn from stock photography is an important part of your gross income, it is not too early to begin devising a plan for modifying your photography business. This article will examine four major trends that affect the future of stock photography and outline other issues that photographers need to consider as they plan for the future.

There appear to be a number of photographers who are “looking outward.” For most, that means doing something else other than producing stock pictures. There are other ways photographers might use photographic skills, and it certainly looks like stock has a steadily declining value in the eyes of the buyers. If stock is all an individual has to sell, it is beginning to look like that individual should expect to see steadily declining revenue going forward.

In the previous story we discussed four major trends in the stock photo industry and listed eleven other related issues that photographers should consider carefully as they try to determine the future prospects of their stock photo business. Below I have discussed each one of these eleven in some detail.

This story offers a number of negotiating times that are useful for anyone who needs to establish a price for an image based on how it will be used.

In most industries the manufacturer sets the price for his products based on his manufacturing costs. Of course if he sets his price too high consumers won't buy. Therefore, he certainly has to be sensitive to consumer demand.

It is time to revise previous estimates of industry revenues based on what has happened in the past year. For several years, we have estimated the size of the worldwide market for still images and illustrations at about $1.8 billion. We have also maintained that overall, this is a no-growth industry, despite the fact that some companies and individuals could point to growth. For 2009, expect gross sales to decline to, at best, $1.45 billion, dipping about 20% below 2008.

Dirck Halstead’s perceptive two-part analysis of the photojournalism business is a must-read for photojournalists or anyone considering this career. It should also be a wake up call for stock and advertising photographers hoping to sell their images for use in print publications.

While the transition from still photographer to television commercial producer is difficult, David Scott Smith’s odyssey illustrates that an image creator and storyteller can find satisfaction in shooting and producing video.

In the last few years, the stock photo industry has experienced significant consolidation. The chart below lists 34 existing companies that have acquired a total of 197 agencies. In general, fewer large companies are controlling the industry as middle-sized and small companies disappear.

Alamy sales for the second quarter of 2009 continued their downward trends in each sales territory, but were flat when converted to dollars based on exchange rate fluctuations.

If you are among those who think newspapers and magazines will always be with us because customers want them, consider these numbers. In 1990, U.S. newsprint consumption was 12.1 million metric tons. Three quarters of that, or over 9 million tons, was used by daily newspapers and the rest by commercial printers. In 2009, U.S. daily newspaper usage is on track to be about 4 million tons, or perhaps a little less.

The numbers below show the number of downloads for each of 124 of iStockphoto’s 150 top earners in the months of March, April, and May of 2009, based on total download statistics supplied daily by iStockphoto and compiled by istockcharts.

Many traditional agencies have tried to introduce a midstock price offering in an attempt to defend against microstock’s steady cannibalization of traditional RF sales. However, all are based on the flawed theory that “quality” of an image can be defined, and that the price charged should be less when the image is of lesser quality.

The advertising model for funding the costs of newspaper and magazine content creation and delivery seems to have outlived its usefulness. Is there an alternative to meeting the needs of advertisers, content creators and consumers?

In late June, Microsoft chief executive officer Steve Ballmer predicted the continued decline of print as an advertising medium and told attendees at the Cannes Lions International Advertising Festival: “[In the future,] all content consumed will be digital, We can only debate if that may be in one, two, five or 10 years… In 10 years, it will all be online.”

Torrens said: “I cannot understand how you believe large corporations need to pay more for their photos because they can afford it. What other business services and products do they buy above the market value just because they can? You are talking about price discrimination based on who the customer is, not the quality of the product (in this case, the photo itself and the license).”

In a recent blog article Lee Torrens said, “I cannot understand how you believe large corporations need to pay more for their photos because they can afford it. What other business services and products do they buy above the market value just because they can? You are talking about price discrimination based on who the customer is, not the quality of the product (in this case, the photo itself and the license.)” In this article I'll explain why I think price discrimination based on the value the customers receives from using the image is legitimate (Usage) and that price discrimination based on file size is inappropriate and has absolutely nothing to do with the "quality of the product".

The following is a list of general categories of imagery that are often used by educational publishers. This list is used by the Universal Images Groups and by Encyclopaedia Britannica in categorizing images for their purposes. In one sense the list might be viewed as covering all types of imagery, but if you think of each category in terms of images that might have an educational application you see that many images that might broadly fit into the category will have little or no education value. 

If you sell pictures for use in print publications take a look at www.backcastonline.com. Not so much for the content (although it is great), but for the concept which could be a huge new opportunity and salvation for editorial photographers.

More and more young people aspire to a career in photography. They sell some of their images and believe that, if they work hard, they can be successful. Often, they hope to become full-time stock photographers, so they can shoot what they want, when they want, and eventually achieve fame and fortune. Yet the hard reality is that opportunities for professional stock photographers are in a decline, which will continue in the years ahead.

Given the rather pessimistic predictions of “Opportunities for Professional Stock Photographers,” photographers and stock agents ought to consider several career decisions. This story outlines a number of issues photographers who are trying to sell their images need to consider. The thoughts are particularly important for those who hope to earn a living from selling their images.

Those selling images to big business at traditional prices must develop a different strategy for addressing the B2SB (small business) market. The strategy needs to embrace the idea of pricing based on value received. Big businesses that receive greater value from the images they purchase should pay more. Few producers and afford to ignore the 25 million B2SB customers in the U.S. The challenge is determining how best to address these customers.

Traditional stock-photo sellers wonder why there does not seem to be any growth in demand for their product. The 2006 U.S. Census Bureau statistics of U.S. businesses could provide some clues.

The chart in this story provides details of the number of image downloads in the last three months of images belonging to 124 of iStockphoto's most productive contributors. Based on the statistics supplied by istockcharts, I have tracked sales for the last three months of the top 150 producers. Of the 150, twenty-six have asked to remain anonymous, so it was only possible to see specific figures for 124 contributors. The combined gross units licensed in March by this group was 431,708. That dropped to 380,934 in April and was 387,500 in May.

The number of images downloaded in May for 124 of iStockphoto’s most productive contributors was essentially flat compared to April. April was down compared to March and only 33 of the 124 licensed rights to more images in May than in March. For details of this analysis see chart. The combined gross units licensed in March by this group was 431,708. That dropped to 380,934 in April and was 387,500 in May.

Traditional photographers argue that Premium Access volumes will never make up the difference for low prices. Despite that argument Getty is licensing more and more of their images at Premium Access prices. The royalties paid for these sales are often lower than those paid by microstock companies and Getty volumes don't seem to be making up the difference.

The Long Tail describes a new way of looking at, and approaching, markets in the Web 2.0 environment. The term was first coined by Chris Anderson in a Wired magazine article in October 2004. It is illustrative of the business strategy of Internet companies like Amazon.com and Netflix which sell a large number of unique items, each in relatively small quantities, to a very large base of customers. This buying pattern creates what is called a "power law distribution curve" or long tail.

The second insight came as I was reading the business section of the Washington Post and noticed that a photo used as part of the lead illustration was credited to iStockphoto. This got me thinking. In the past I’ve seen a lot of photos in the Post credited to Photodisc. Now we may be seeing the beginning of a move from the more pricey Photodisc images to those of iStockphoto.

Recently I was trying to explain the stock photo business to an investment analyst and making the point that there comes a time when a photographer can no longer afford to produce stock images because his costs are greater than his income. The analyst was under the impression that a “stock photo” was one that had been produced, and paid for, while the photographer was on assignment for someone else. Thus the image was “expense free” to the creator. And, in theory, the only “additional costs” the photographer might have to make the image available for secondary licensing would be the cost of packing it up for shipping it to his stock agency.

As the stock industry changes, traditional stock agencies and distributors are losing ground because they have failed to adopt new technological efficiencies. Granted, constantly keeping up with the latest technological changes can be expensive, and most agencies have already invested huge amounts to get where they are today. But, microstock sellers have introduced a number of strategies that traditional agencies and distributors should be considering – if not rushing to adopt.

Recently, I wrote an article comparing the advantages and disadvantages of various marketing strategies. I suggested that in terms of the number of images licensed for commercial uses "rights-managed licenses account for 3% of the total number of annual licenses. Traditional royalty-free images make up 6%; 20% goes to subscription services and 71% to microstock.”

There are four basic marketing pricing strategies to consider when trying to decide how to market stock images. They are Rights Managed, Royalty Free, Microstock and Subscription. Below I will list some of the advantages and disadvantages of each from the image producer's perspective. However photographers need to remember that if a particular strategy offers an advantage for the customer it may become widely used regardless of the hopes or desires of photographers.

How long will it take before traditional prices drop to microstock levels? If Alamy's sales are any indication microstock sellers may not be cannibalizing traditional sales in terms of number of units licensed but they certainly are cannibalizing revenue as traditional sellers fight to compete.

Not surprisingly, Alamy sales for the first quarter of 2009 were down again, but this time only by 11%, compared to Q4 2008 when the drop was 21% below Q3 2008. If you are looking for good news, could this be an indication of a turn around in the economy?

Leading iStockphoto contributors saw their sales drop in April compared to March 2009 according to our analysis of the numbers available through istockcharts. Numbers are not available for 24 of the 150 with the highest total downloads. Only 10 of the other 126 saw their monthly downloads increase. Total downloads in March for the 126 contributors were 436,410, but in April that number dropped almost 9% to 385,203. To some extent this might be explained by Easter coming in April rather than March and resulting in one less business day in April.

Leading iStockphoto contributors saw their sales drop in April compared to March 2009 according to our analysis of the numbers available through istockcharts. Numbers are not available for 24 of the 150 with the highest total downloads. Only 10 of the other 126 saw their monthly downloads increase. Total downloads in March for the 126 contributors were 436,410, but in April that number dropped almost 9% to 385,203. To some extent this might be explained by Easter coming in April rather than March and resulting in one less business day in April.

In early 2009 Selling-Stock surveyed photographers, designers and illustrators in an effort to determine how business in 2008 compared with 2007. based on the income generated in 2008. The 2008 survey asks the same questions as the previous year in hopes that the results would provide comparative numbers, enabling creators to make informed decisions about trends in the production and sale of stock images. In this rapidly changing and challenging business environment, many image creators are adjusting business strategies. Some freelance stock photographers are turning to assignments. For others a staff position, possibly even in a non-related field, is now a primary source of income, and the revenue earned from freelance work is only secondary. Conversely, amateurs with no expectations of ever earning a living from photography are finding that selling stock can be a lucrative and rewarding income supplement.

The results of Selling Stock’s 2008 self-employed photographer income survey compared to the 2007 results are disappointing on several fronts. First, we only had 136 responses this year compared with 238 in 2007. Many factors could have contributed to this, but the 2008 data must be viewed as having less validity. Nevertheless, as we parse the data there are some interesting nuggets of information.

I believe that worldwide customers pay a combined total of about $1.8 billion for still stock images and illustration annually. There has been virtually no growth in this market in the last few of years. In the fall of 2008 Corbis CEO Gary Shenk estimated that total 2007 revenue for the industry was $2.3 billion and predicted that it will decline to $2.2 billion by 2012.

The following is a list of the 131 highest producing contributors to iStockphoto and shows the number of downloads they had in March 2009 and approximate figures of the royalty revenue this represents. The data came from istockcharts (http://istockcharts.multimedia.de/). The first column is the total number of downloads for the individual as it was listed on istockcharts on March 2, 2009. The second column show downloads as of April 1st and the third column is the difference between these two numbers or total downloads for that individual for the month.

In 2006 I examined many of the factors that are impacting on stock photo market and leading to price declines. There were also a number of factors leading to declining sales volumes to traditional customers. These include the general demand for printed products, the tendency to use images multiple times but only pay once, trends in book publishing, postage costs, crowdsourcing of images and various types of guerrilla advertising. Since that time the situation has become worse.

Traditional photographers argue that it is impossible to make money by licensing their images at microstock prices. They say volumes will never make up the difference. Despite that argument, Getty Images is licensing more and more images at Premium Access prices, which are not all that far away from what microstock sellers charge.

In 2008 on behalf of Selling-Stock we surveyed photographers, illustrators and graphic designers designed to provide useful data for all those who license rights to their images. This story provides detailed results of this survey.

Selling Stock recently analyzed some iStockcharts data in an effort to assess iStockphoto’s revenues during the first two months of 2009 and predict the possible effects of recession on microstock. Though the original analysis suggested a decline in iStock sales, new information about iStockcharts makes this a questionable conclusion.

Recently several stock agencies have found it necessary to discontinue operations. When that happens it often seems that photographers are hurt the worse because the royalties they are owed are never paid. I was recently asked, “what do you think went wrong in the industry for these firms and their photographers?”

Recently, I was asked to estimate the total number of images, worldwide that are available for rights-managed (RM) or royalty-free (RF) marketing. Many may find the numbers surprising.

In November 2003 I began tracking Getty Images return-per-image by dividing the total number of RM and RF images into the total revenue generated in the previous four quarters. In the last four years Getty’s gross revenue from still image licensing has grown about 50%, but as the charts below show, not nearly as fast as the number of images added to the collection. As a result image suppliers have found that they have to produce more and more images each year just to stay even.

The industry needs a new pricing model. The models we have include rights-managed, royalty-free, subscription, microstock and rights-ready, which is about to become extinct. What is needed is use-based pricing, or UBP.

This story provides some history on how royalty-free got started and why creators only get 20% of the gross fee paid for royalty-free images.

“Should microstock photographers selling the same stock photos at different prices?” Recently Lee Torrens of Microstock Diaries asked several well known photographers, agents and industry analysts this question. This article gives you my answer. For the answers of the other industry leaders see Toren's story.

There are countless stories about what best-selling stock photographers earn. However, the earnings of photographers a little farther down the food chain are more germane. It is useful to consider the likely earnings of the 50 most successful contributors to Getty Images’ creative collections (rights-managed and royalty-free) and compare these figures with iStockphoto’s 50 most successful photographers, paying particular attention to the probable earnings of the 50th photographer on the list.

Stock photography producers and sellers have lost sight of how to value their images. Customers value images based on what they can afford to pay for the right image for a specific project. An image that isn’t quite right, but will do, may have a lower perceived value for the customer than one that is the perfect solution. A given customer may value a specific image at one price if it is to be used in a PowerPoint presentation and a much higher price when used in a print ad. The customer is the driving force in the transaction, and the value he or she places on the image is much more important than any arbitrary value assigned by the photographer.

Many traditional stock photographers question whether it will ever be possible to earn enough money from microstock production to justify the effort. Ron Chapple’s experience is instructive. For more than two decades, Chapple has been a leader on the cutting edge of each new trend in stock photography.

The following is a list of the 50 iStockphoto contributors with the most career downloads and thus the highest earning as of the end of 2008. Non-microstock photographers may use this list, and the links provided, to learn a little more about microstock’s potential.

There are countless stories about what best selling stock photographers earn, but more germane might be the earnings of photographers a little farther down the food chain. Several recent conversations have led me to consider the likely earnings of the 50 most successful contributors to Getty’s Creative collections (rights managed and royalty free) and compare those figures with iStockphoto’s 50 most successful photographers giving particular attention to the probable earnings of the 50th photographer on the list.

In 2009 should photographers market newly produced images as rights managed (RM), traditional royalty free (RF) or microstock? In my view, it won’t make a whole lot of difference.

Companies that previously specialized in royalty-free licensing are now asking photographers to offer their new production as rights-managed content. Photographers are questioning whether or not this is a wise idea. Photographers worry that customers will not go to RF companies to buy RM–and if they do, they may not be willing to pay RM prices.

Does Microstock hurt Top pros or not. Here's some comments from microstock shooters and from the pros.

The question for stock photographers is how to maximize revenue. Is RM better then RF? Is traditional RF better then Microstock and what about Subscriptions? This article provides some thinking on this subject.

The first thing photographers must consider when pondering microstock exclusivity is why a distributor needs exclusive representation of a royalty-free image—which, but its very nature, is a non-exclusive product. Customer know that hundreds of people—maybe even the customer’s direct competitors—may simultaneously use any image the customer purchase. That's what royalty-free is all about. If they want exclusivity they will look for a rights-managed image.

Stock photographers are constantly concerned with what to shoot. Everyone knows that people pictures tend to sell in greater volume than non-people pictures, but people doing what? Which concepts are in greatest demand? Information most helpful to answering such questions comes from microstock sites—not from companies licensing at traditional prices—and is freely available to everyone.

The following are concept words that customers often use to find images. When keywording an image add as many concepts as are appropriate to the keyword list. If after searching the concept list you cannot find any words that that fit your image there is a good chance your images will not be a frequent seller. When planning shoots try to take pictures that will illustrate some of these concepts.

Some photo subjects are in high demand, others aren't. But, shooting just the concepts that are in hightest demand may be a losing proposition because everyone else is shooting the same thing. This chart list some keywords or tags that are frequently requested. The chart was generated by searching iStockphoto for certain words. It shows the total number of downloads of the best selling image in each category as of the above date. It also lists the total images in the collection with the particular keyword or tag. The list is in ascending order by download.

Many traditional stock shooters with long experience in the industry are beginning to take a hard look at microstock. However, they are often stymied in their efforts by microstock’s acceptance and upload requirements, which are very different from those of traditional agencies. Images that would be readily accepted by traditionals are often found unacceptable when submitted to microstock.

Selling Stock’s self-employed photographer income received 238 responses from around the world. Gross income reported was $33,741,722, and 60% ($20,284,081) came from stock sales. Almost all (90%) respondents earned some revenue from licensing rights to stock images.

This story provides information on 2007 photographer income. The survey was conducted the summer of 2008. We received responses from 238 photographers from around the world. Gross income reported was $33,741,722, and 60% ($20,284,081) came from stock sales.

Many believe the marketplace has an oversupply of images. This raises several concerns for image producers. (1) As more options become available to satisfy the needs of a relatively stable group of buyers the odds are reduced that any particular image will be chosen for use.

Photographers still ask me, “Is the Hellman & Friedman’s acquisition of Getty Images good or bad (for photographers)?” As far as I can see whether or not Getty is owned by H&F doesn’t make a whole lot of difference for photographers.

This story deals with a number of things that need to be considered when negotiating. It includes a discussion of how to deal with multiple of a single image in multiple publications, or many insertions in a single publication. There is a discussion of buyouts, discounting where there are multiple images licensed in a single sale, reuse and revision and minimum price. Finally there is a checklist of things to consider when negotiating.

Increasingly RM and traditional RF photographers complain about declining incomes and the difficulty in getting information from the companies that represent their work. Traditional distributors might do well to adopt a number of idea, initially instituted and popularized by microstock, that have led to improved relationships between photographers and distributors.

For photographers there are basically three ways to get photos where customers can see them. The first is setting up a searchable site. This can be costly and tends not to work well unless the photographer has a broad niche image collection, and a solid base of customers. Being recognized as a leading light in the niche helps.

This article defines the six most common methods for licensing stock images. They are: RM, RR, MRR, RF, Subscription and Microstock.

Microstock sellers insist that simple pricing is a key to their success, but many of the current strategies aren’t really that simple.

Photographers regularly ask why the royalty paid on RF sales is only 20% of the net received by their agent when the agent pays 40% to 65% on RM sales that are made in the same manner. It doesn’t seem fair?

By 2012 digital advertising is expected to eclipse traditional advertising according to 52% of respondents to Accenture’s 2008 Global Media Survey of more than 100 senior business executives in North America and Europe.

Whenever you get a request for a buyout of an images the first thing to do is clarify what the clients means by “buyout”. More often than not, when the client uses gthe term “buyout” their definition is very different from the photographer's.

This article discusses pricing strategies and provides suggested prices for licensing images for Trade Show and Powerpoint uses.

This article provides strategies and prices for licensing images for calendar and greeting card uses.

Pricing rights-managed web uses has become very difficult in the last few years due to the availability of microstock at extremely low prices. Currently, web uses represent a far bigger share of the market than print uses and the proportional web share seems likely to continue to grow as the print declines.

This article provides prices for use of images on Educational and Retail Posters. For more information about educational uses see Stock Photo Prices - Textbooks, JHP2067

This article provides information on prices non-publications advertising uses such as: billboards, point-of-purchase banners or murals, electronic displays, transit and airline posters, bus kiosks, transit and taxi cards.

This story provides a schedule that is useful when establishing a price for editorial usage in newspapers. Prices should be based on the size of usage on the page and the circulation of the publication. While these prices are reasonable, many struggling publications refuse to pay these rates.

One of the most difficult uses to price is public relations. The client who wants to buy a picture for PR use wants to allow magazines and newspapers unlimited use of that picture forever, completely free of charge. This article will provide you with some things to think about before licensing rights to a stock photo for PR use.

Newspaper advertising rates are based on how broadly the ad is used, not whether the publication is characterized as National, Regional or Local. National publications tend to be toward smaller circulations. Based on this theory, ads in National publications will tend to be priced higher than those in Regional or Trade publications. This story provides suggested prices.

When magazines do a favorable story on a company or product, the company often requests reprints of the story to use in marketing and public relations. These reprints often have great value for the company because they represent an independent point of view.

This story provides a schedule that is useful when establishing a price for editorial usage. Prices should be based on the size of usage on the page and the circulation of the publication.

This story provides some information relative to establishing prices for fine art prints. These prices can vary greatly depending on the reputation of the artist and whether the images will be used by a private individual or commercially.

Magazines and newspapers published by a corporation, institution or fraternal organization are know as house organs. When house organ distributed to member of an organization other than employees they are considered external, as the members are essentially their customers. The term "Internal House Organ" is used to refer to those publications that are distributed to employees only. It is important to clarify who the audience is in order to set the price. This story provides charts with prices based on the size of usage and the circulation.

This article provides information on how to price stock photo usages in television for both advertising and editorial usages.

This article provides information on how to price stock photo usages for hang tags. Hang Tags are usually attached to items like clothing or sunglasses, where the product may not be sold inside packaging, but the manufacturer still wants to associate the product with some image.

This article provides information on how to price stock photo usages for packaging. Because packaging comes in many different shapes and sizes, it is often difficult to base the price on page size (1/4-page 1/2-page, etc.) We recommend that you find out as much as possible about the overall package and how your image will appear on it before establishing a price. It is often useful to ask to see a layout of how the image will be used.

This article provides information on how to price point of purchase pieces, including stand alone counter cards, case cards, register cards or table tents. These are meant to influence the customer’s purchasing decision at the point of sale.

This article provides information on how to price stock photo usages for corporate annual and quarterly reports.

This article provides information on how to price stock photo usages for free standing inserts or advertising supplements that are inserted in newspapers or magazines.

This article provides information on how to price stock photo usages for all types of brochures, catalogs, direct mail pieces, single sheet flyers and promo cards.

This article provides information on how to price stock photo usages for advertising in National, Regional or Local magazines.

The business of licensing rights for textbook and educational use has been changing dramatically in the last year or so. Photographers and distributors need to make some major adjustments in the ways they calculate prices for uses compared to what they were doing a few years ago. This article outlines some new pricing strategies and explores some of the options. Those who continue to use the old strategies are leaving huge amounts of money on the table.

In 2007 I proposed a pricing strategy that combines the rights managed theory of pricing based on usage and the simplicity of microstock and its ability to license rights for very small uses for fees of a few dollars. The system is described in a 12 page booklet. I call the strategy Modified Right Ready.

The rationale for royalty-free licensing used to be to provide the customer with three benefits: a simple, straightforward price that didn’t require negotiation, unlimited use of the purchased image and a low cost. As this marketing concept has matured, all of these ideas have been lost.

As part of the process of selling Getty Images Goldman Sachs was provided detailed information relative to Getty's operations and on November 28, 2007 they produced a report that projected revenue for 2008 and 2012. The following are those figures. Getty Images was later sold to Hellman & Friedman. Due to the tremendous pressure microstock is putting on the stock photo market the following chart should be sobering for both traditional RF and RM shooters.

This chart provides a list of the stock agencies Getty has acquired since its founding in 1995.

This chart provides a list of the major sellers of stock photography worldwide. The list is broken up into three separate groups, those with revenue in excess of $20 million, those with revenue between $5 and $20 million and those with revenue between $1 and $5 million.

I believe the gross worldwide revenue that is generated from the licensing of stock imagery, both still photos and illustrations, is about $1.8 billion annually. This story explains in detail the process I went through to arrived at that number.

This story outlines industry trends based on the first-quarter 2008 results of all the public companies, plus Alamy.

RF prices vary widely depending on the brand. The following are some of the prices charged for usage by various brands on Getty's site.

Getty Images reported revenue for Q4 2007 of $218.1 million up from $203.7 million in Q4 2006 and from $212.7 million in Q3 2007.

Below is a list of the Getty Images revenue for the various segments of their business quarter by quarter from Q3 2002 through Q4 2007. At the beginning of 2008 Getty stopped supplying quarterly breakdowns.

The following is a breakdown of Getty's Footage sales per quarter from Q4 2002 through Q4 2007. At the end of 2007 Getty stopped providing breakdowns of individual segments of their business.

Selling-Stock has launched a photographer survey designed to provide useful data for all those who license rights to their images.

According to ZenithOptimedia, 2008 ad spending worldwide is expected to reach $453.6 billion with 40% ($183.5 billion) in North America and 25% ($113.5 billion) in Western Europe. These figures are down from an estimated $486 billion at the end of 2007.

One of the biggest hurdles traditional RF and Microstock sellers face when confronted with the idea of switching from an RF pricing structure to a use-based one is how to explain such a switch to customers who’ve been told one price fits all and not to worry about usage.

This story provides a revenue analysis of the stock photo market in 2008 prior to the beginning of the recession.

This charts the stock photo industry revenue trends at the end of the first quarter 2008. The revenue peak was reached in the second quarter of 2008 and then the dramatic slide of the world recession began.

Traditional stock photography sellers constantly struggle to improve their collections and search. Diverse collections are added to the offering to increase customer choice. Then portals revert to tighter editing, limiting the number of images returned on each search. When portals use this strategy, the rejected images often turn up on other portals and customers often buy the rejected images.

Moodboardunlimited’s “You Set The Price” strategy is intriguing. The tremendous advantage is that the company will never lose a customer due to price, and the offer should attract new customers. However, there are at least three significant disadvantages.

The information world is moving rapidly toward more customized and targeted communications, which will dramatically affect how photographers market and promote images. “To be successful, large and small companies will need to build their micro-targeting skills, identify small intense subgroups and communicate with them about their individual needs and wants,” according to Barbara Pellow of InfoTrends.

Royalty free shooter Don Farrall argues that return-per-image (RPI) as I have calculated it has weaknesses as a measure of success. Companies offering stock images for sale need to continually provide customers with new material and a greater “depth of choice.” But as growth in number of images exceeds growth in revenue, RPI automatically falls. The problem is that older images in the count have less chance of selling and that skews the averages.

In the very near future, RM photographers and traditional RF photographers will need to take a hard look at the whole issue of volume relative to price. Traditionally, photographers brought up in the old school (before 2000) focused on getting the maximum possible fee for every image licensed. Volume was secondary.

Recently, I asked a Chicago-based picture researcher, who specializes in research for book publishers, if she used microstock, Â since such sites offer extensive image choices for textbooks. She said no, since a big problem was securing rights.

For 25 years Ron Chapple has been one of the world's leading stock photographers, always on the cutting edge of the next trend. In the 1990s he was the top seller of RM imagery for FPG, a major stock photo agency of that period. After Getty Images purchased FPG, Ron established Thinkstock, an RF production company. In 2004 he sold Thinkstock to Jupitermedia for more than $4 million. While still producing RM and traditional RF, he recently became an aggressive producer of microstock.

Many professional photographers claim no one could make a living selling images for $1.00 to $2.00, but there are always exceptions. At 28, Yuri Arcus is the world's top selling microstock photographer and has a good chance of reaching his aspiration of earning $1 million from stock photography before he is 30.

If you want to continue to take pictures for a living, it's time to start learning to shoot video. Why? because newspapers and magazines are beginning to move away from print and toward online. Once online offerings have been established, video and sound become more appealing and a better way to communicate editorial information and advertising messages than using stills.

In a recent study by The Association of Commercial Stock Image Licensors (ACSIL) it was determined that the global stock footage industry generates approximately $282 million in licensing revenue annually.

This is a brief history of stock photography examining how it started and how it got to where it is today. I have tried to chronicle the key events and changes that have taken place in the last 80 years, in hopes that understanding the past will enable us to avoid repeating some of the same mistakes in the future.

Fifty-five photographers with a gross 2005 income of $8,490,187 responded to our survey. This was up 9.7% from 2004 and 78% of this income was from stock. 30% of the revenue was from Getty and almost 15% from Corbis. The average gross income for the photographers responding was $154,367 and the median income was $126,000.  The average stock income was $119,755 or 78% of the gross.  Comparing these results to previous surveys the gross income and the stock income are maybe a little high, but about what might have been expected.  The results are up from 2003, but about the same as in 2001 and down from 2000.

Corbis is probably doing more than any other stock photo seller to track infringements, and collect from those who infringe. Dave Green, Corbis Senior Corporate Counsel, explains how they do it and the benefits, not only in additional revenue, but in educating customers.

The stock photo industry is rapidly moving to the point where there are more photo subjects you can’t use for commercial purposes than those you can.

Now that we know who the buyers are, what do they want to buy? What are the subjects that sell? In the broadest sense almost anything. Daily there are weird requests coming from small special interest publications and book publishers for very unique and unusual subject matter that very few people are likely to have ever photographed.