Microstock is the new RF
Posted on February 1st, 2010 in General, lookstat, microstock | 11 Comments »

The distinction between microstock and royalty free (RF) is becoming irrelevant.
If this seems a little controversial, consider the following:
- Veer announced that it is blending RF & microstock at Veer.com and moving rights managed (RM) imagery to Corbis.
- Getty launched Thinkstock this morning. This is a subscription-only site which integrates imagery from Getty, Jupiter & Istock into one blended set of search results.
Microstock and RF will be blended seamlessly from the buyer’s perspective and image buyers will be given more choice than ever before. Buyers are being presented with images in response to searches and they will buy what works best for them.
Impact on Pricing
What happens to pricing depends on your point of view. I’m optimistic that we’ll start to see pricing get tied to how often images are purchased. This form of pricing is fairly common in microstock today; all images start off at the same level and popular images go up in price. As a result:
- The best performing images earn the most.
- The lower prices of newer images ensures that they don’t get completely buried by the best-sellers. As they sell, they move up the earnings ladder.
If anything similar to this is implemented in the blended sites, prices for popular images will go up whether they began life with the ‘microstock’ or the ‘RF’ label. Conversely, images that don’t sell well will not benefit.
Ultimately, the impact on pricing is likely to be mixed, and your background in stock photography will influence how you feel about pricing. If you started in microstock, the pricing trend has been upwards. If your background is in RM/RF, then ‘upwards’ is probably not the first word that comes to mind.
Still, the market is what it is, and your choices remain the same: do nothing, adapt, or leave. I think there is still opportunity but it won’t involve doing what worked in the past.
What About Rights Managed?
There continues to be a place in the market for RM imagery, but this won’t be limited to traditional agencies. It would be easy for a site like iStock or Fotolia to implement RM licensing across their entire collections. As more traditional image buyers begin to explore self-service online channels for stock photography, it’s inevitable that sites will evolve to accommodate their requirements. This doesn’t mean a decline in pricing – images, that are in demand, unique, and hard to replicate, will always command a premium. The more likely scenario is a continued evolution towards a single stock photography licensing storefront. (Whether that is a million small storefronts integrated by Google or an individual stock photography site remains to be seen.)
Implications for Stock Photographers
- The distinction between microstock and RF is not meaningful.
- Evaluate and test your distribution options (direct, RM, Micro/RF) to find which ones work for you.
- Microstock is now a viable way to get your images in front of RM/RF buyers.
Further Reading
- Ellen Boughn – Where do you fit in Phototown?
- Paul Melcher - The New End
- Fast Media Magazine – Veer Calling Time on RF
A Parting Thought
If Thinkstock updates it’s collection every week, I think the iStock portion of the collection is going to grow the fastest. I think the same will be true at Veer and the images submitted through Veer Marketplace. It’ll be interesting to see how the editing strategies evolve to manage this aspect of their sites.
Download your Free Guide Now!
11 Responses
Hi Rahul,
with an easy prophecy I wrote some days ago on twitter some #JAST (Just Another Stockphoto Thought): "Traditional Royalty-Free Stock Photography is going to disappear. #Microstock will be the standard" and " #microstock exclusive collections will be the RF higher end price".
I want to add here another one: "Customers tired to find the same RF photos everywhere will return to RM"
Let's see…
Cheers,
roberto
I think the 'boost the image price for the images that sell' strategy is a good one, but it seems only Dreamstime is making use of it. Fotolia has higher prices on a contributor basis but only a small handful of photographers ever make it to emerald (especially when they keep moving the goal posts) where you can start raising your prices. I hope more sites adopt this strategy though.
agreed on all counts: http://gregceoblog.com/as-microstock-and-rf-conve...
-greg
Roberto,
I think you're spot on with your #JAST. I'm going to find that tweet right now. As far as RM, your prediction is duly noted.
Rahul
Good post Rahul. It's the first post I've read about the stock image industry in a while. It was brought to my attention by a new friend on FB. Having worked for many years on the supplier side (Getty and others), and then on the buyer side as a freelance art buyer, I just wanted to make one point based on your comment: "I’m optimistic that we’ll start to see pricing get tied to how often images are purchased".
In my experience, customers 'buying' images with this type of license have the perception that they are doing just that: "buying". They think they can subscribe at a low low rate, gobble up images and do whatever they want with the images, forever. The inexperienced licensees ignore the fine print of the license terms, they don't have proper DAM systems and do whatever they want with the images. Yes, I'm from the old school of stock. And to me, the word "copyright" has gotten buried by the term "micro". The way images are purchased is the major flaw of this licensing model. I agree with your other comment "adapt or leave" but micro/RF shooters must keep this important fact in mind – how images are licensed, stored and re-used by licensees. If only suppliers could see the same stats as their agencies with regards to how many images do in fact rise to the top in relation to the number of images in the databases. IMHO, too many shooters get stuck at the bottom and the entire industry suffers while the brokers selling the 'stock' collect fat paycheks. You may think I'm grumpy. I'm not because I have moved on from the world of stock. I'm just sad to witness what the subscription licensing model is doing to the term copyright. It's quickly becoming "micro-copyright" for all suppliers. I'm going back to my burrow now.
Dear Bernard,
Thanks a ton for taking the time to share your thoughts. I do think there is an education issue on the licensing side and your point about ignoring the fine print is spot on. It will be interesting to see if we end up coming full circle to a usage & performance-based licensing model as technology improves and more image usage moves online. I have a suspicion that we might but it will take some time. Was it your experience that RM licensing buyers we more conscientious about compliance? If so, I wonder how things will evolve as they do more and more of their purchasing in an online self-service model.
Regardless, thank you again for your comment.
Cheers,
Rahul
Micro didn't mess with copyright – digital technology and reality messed with copyright.
Intellectual property has been questioned for centuries, digital technology simply exposed it. In my opinion, stock agencies need to drastically rethink what is they are actually selling, and how long they can actually sell it for.
I'm not against stock or trying to negotiate private deals over who gets an image (Ie. RM content), but I just wish stock agencies would wake up to reality a bit more and stop trying to rely on copyright laws and government in general to solve their problems, some of which they have actually created for themselves. As a producer for stock, copyright has actually made life more difficult and costly. Just listen to all the photographers on forums complaining about copyright absurdities like prohibited keywords and copyrighted shapes of items like lamps and bottles – it's madness really.
I think stock would still exist even with the abolition of IP laws – for sheer economic reasons, but I also think the industry would look very different .
"The distinction between microstock and royalty free (RF) is becoming irrelevant."
Sentences like this can be confusing for someone not in the industry. "microstock" typically is licensed with a royalty free licensing contract, much like traditionally priced "macrostock". So, there is no "micro vs. RF" – there is content licensed with a royalty free licensing agreement at various pricepoints.
Good point, Sean. You're completely correct – microstock licenses are typically royalty free licenses. I was trying to say that what people call microstock is no different than what is referred to as macrostock RF. As you mention, it is all royalty free imagery. Even the price points are converging.
[...] I’ve written about before, microstock and traditional RF stock photography are converging and it’s important for traditional RF stock photographers to test microstock as a channel for [...]
[...] We have been working hard over the past few weeks on a free 35-page guide for RM & RF stock photographers who are interested in microstock. Microstock is a growing part of the stock photography market and it’s important to stay informed about it, especially in light of the convergence taking place between micro & RF. [...]