Microstock -
A new way to earn less





         Just when you thought royalty-free was just about the dumbest way to earn as little as possible from your stock photography along comes microstock. In the past seven years microstock websites have sprung up like weeds in the
 
already wild backyard that is the internet, and for only a few dollars you can download a royalty-free image for commercial use. This is great for no-budget, low-budget and cheap clients as they can obtain "content" nearly for free, but needless to say microstock is not an effective marketing tool for photographers. The microstock model is profoundly bad for photographers, and thus, I predict, it will flourish.

         Photographers long ago gave away any control of the stock industry and have instead acquiesced to bad idea (RF) after bad idea (microstock) while rationalizing and hoping that working harder and getting paid less will somehow benefit them in the long run.

Let's do the micro-math:

         According to my research, the average price paid per download of microstock imagery is $1.63 per image. Assuming a fifty percent split with the microstock "agency," a photographer earns $.82 per image sold. Let's also assume the micro-photographer has monthly overhead/expenses of $3000. (This figure does not include overhead for a studio, as many microstock contributing photographers are amateurs and hobbyists.) At $.82 per image it would take 3659 microstock sales per month to cover expenses with no profit. Now for some even easier math: A 1 gigabyte compact flash card costs about $15. With sales of $.82 per image it would take 19 microstock sales to buy a single card.

         One could probably earn more money collecting bottles for recycling!

         No rational businessperson worth their MBA would go for a deal like this, but then most businesspeople are motivated by money while most photographers are motivated by ego.

         Too many times I've heard amateur photographers say, "I don't care about money, I just want to see my pictures published." This is the sort of dumb, ego-driven rationalization that microstock suppliers count on. They know the marketplace has a voracious appetite for cheap imagery and there are plenty of big-ego photographers who will keep them supplied with cheap new crap to sell. Let's not blame the money-motivated micro-marketers for profiting from photographers' egos. The blame and cause for the downward pressure on image pricing lies solely with photographers who participate in these schemes.

         You're probably thinking that with multiple sales and multiple income streams, microstock might be a nice income supplement. While I agree that a 21st century photographer requires multiple income streams from a combination of
assignments, stock and fine-art, etc., microstock is a costly and time consuming source of insignificant funds.

         As a professional photographer I agree with most criticisms of the microstock scheme; it devalues the photograph, and the industry of professional photography in general, and it drives prices downward. If only one percent of traditional stock clients switched to buying microstock images, the net loss to the stock photo industry would be over 21 million dollars! That is irrefutable downward pricing pressure that only causes us all to work harder for less.

         While almost every commodity in the world is going up in price, photographers are seeing their prices drop. This is not good for the industry or for individual photographers. But the ship has sailed, the horses have left the gate, and microstock is here to stay. But if you cheapen and sell your work through microstock you probably won't be here to stay.

Dale O'Dell is a regular contributor to PhotoStockNotes. He produces cyber-generated stock photography from his studio in Prescott, Arizona. Email: dale@cybertrails.com;VF Phone: 1 928 541-0944; Fax: 1 928 541-0957; Web: http://www.dalephoto.com


           


           

Tommy Thompson

Kerry Kolb

Jon Saban

Jake Nelson