It’s Royalty Free Jim, but not as we know it!

While denigrated by many, Microstock may have it’s place in the stock photographer’s digital toolbox

By Jon Mitchell

WHEN I first saw the google ad for a $3 high res file, I did not know whether to laugh or cry. Was this the end of stock photography as we know it? What sort of files were selling for $3?

Alarmed then, when I typed in “Barcelona” into iStockphoto.com and got back several pages of professionally shot stock images!

I did not think much about it and followed a debate about it on the Stockphoto.net discussion list with mild interest. Until now, that is. My recent sales reports have been dismal from traditional RF stock. I have hundreds of great reportage images that are not of a “hard news” nature and are often of everyday subject matter.

These types of images did well on alamy.com – though as some may know – I had big problems with that company and therefore it makes sense to put part of my collection (mostly older work) into Microstock or RF or both.

So I stormed the web looking for Microstock outlets and was pleasantly surprised. It seems a lot of the traditional stock photo market for more generic images and that of model-released material is now housed in this type of agency.

But if you are only making a small sum on each picture, how can it be profitable? Well, if one cares to analyse it, then the logic is clear – a nice picture, shot with your Leica, with no identifiable logos or faces, etc, should be popular on the Micro portals where you get a far larger number of potential clients than most traditional agencies. Furthermore, most of these agreements are by their nature non-exclusive.

Hence, if you add up that with 750 images on a Micro-portal, earning on average $2 per month, that is a gross total of $1,500. This is probably much more than what you may get (if anything these days) from traditional Rights Managed agencies. Times that average by 12 and each image (on average) is making $12 per year, which is not a bad figure, considering many RM agencies struggle to achieve even two-thirds of that amount.

Of course, much of my collection is not suitable for Microstock, hard reportage, historical images and handout pics are not easy to license as RF at the moment and many of these sites are not exactly dedicated to photo-journalism.

Though one in Malaysia, promises to Microstock that material too. Snag is with some Microstock agencies is that they have a high number of semi-professional and amateur users and some have poor rates of commission – usually ranging from 20%-50%, though this is similar to rates of commission (and RM licenses in poorer countries) from foreign sub agencies who represent the one you file into in say the UK.

Curiously though, they often have editing systems that seem inexplicable. One I uploaded several very good images too, only took one generic business picture and rejected the rest. So don’t expect to dump old or poorly-executed images, as you may be wasting your time. Naturally, when it comes to editing, whatever the license system, all agencies do it differently and Microstock is no exception.

My interest is further aroused as most of the images I have uploaded (just a handful so far) do not sell very often with my current RM distribution. I do wonder though, whether some editor in Seattle though will see their uses before hitting that reject button? And should I indeed continue to supply this side of the market?

Funnily enough, these low-priced image shops are finicky about quality, though many are quite flexible on file sizes (within limits!). Most sites are user friendly, though you can see from the inset text reviews of some of the better known ones. Almost all require un-interpolated files, which seems to go against what I hear from the RM agencies I supply.

So how does Microstock work? It is quite simple...You offer stock images at a fixed low price and many more people can afford to use the image, so they do and when they do, you get a commission on the sale - a bit like the traditional system.

Personally, while it may have some impact on stock sales for some, I think that most photo-journalism (for example) will not be too much affected by the advent of Microstock. Now established Royalty Free collections, may face their Waterloo, which will hit the large agencies harder than medium-sized ones (for a change!).

Some Microstock agencies offer subscription services to clients, as so they can download 750 pics a month, etc, etc. Others sell at different prices, usually from 0.35c (via subscription) at the low end and near on $50 at the high end.

Clients vary, though many are probably not professional researchers or editors, rather those on tight budgets (like most web sites) and new clients like graphic designers, web site designers, etc.

Most of these agencies accept FTP submissions or browser uploads. Usually they do not like interpolated files and so only the original file size should be uploaded.

My verdict? With some clever editing and consideration - depending on the sort of pictures you have in your collection – putting part of your collection (especially older reportage images of a generic nature, underperforming landscapes, etc) - as Microstock may well turn out to be a wise decision to earn more from your collection. Therefore, despite the barrage of criticism it has received (not too mention lots of praise from clients), it may have a place for some types of work.

Interesting for the editorial end of the industry too, how all this pans out. It could turn out to be the case that Microstock will pay all of our pensions…


Microstock vs Rights Managed

Yes, it does sound like a silly Hollywood film, though here is the lowdown:

RM stock is usually worked out by a simple mathethmatical formulae:

Total annual return from said library

Divided by

Number of images held in the agency

Equals average return per image

So to put it in proper maths (ficticious numbers):

12,000 (£) in total net sales divided by 4,000 (images in library)

=  £3 per image / per year

Of course, few or none sell every image in the collection, so this is an average return per year on the hard work you put into Photoshop.

Compare this to possible Micro stats

750 images on Micro portal

Say most have been downloaded at least once at an average download fee of £3 in 12 months, some many times to a variety of buyers, some on their own have earned a few hundred pounds in sales on their own.

Hence the average return is:

750 x 3 = £2,250

So what if you eventually get 4,000 images?

4,000 x 3 = £12,000

Now, here I have purposely put both values from both types of agencies at the same number of images and return.

It is likely that you may calculate images on a monthly average and from some quick calculations, it appears that a good living can be had from Microstock sales, if you have the right material. i.e. the £2,250 from 750 images could well be your monthly, not yearly income!

Like normal licenses, working out how much you are likely to get from Microstock is an arcane business, though istockphoto does give some insight, as they list the number of downloads in public and some files do get bought tens or even hundreds of times.

So it is likely, that with the right imagery (as explained in the main article, editorial is not yet very well catered for at this end of the market and there may be ethical considerations of selling certain reportage images to this market) – i.e. your fluffier documentary images – you could seemingly earn more than with a traditional Rights Managed agency!

Some may even choose to alter their emphasis and supply this market or find through fate that a lot of your work is suitable for this market. To give you some idea, my personal collection is about 2,000 images. Of these, I estimate that I have between 300-1,000 images that are not selling well as RM, that may earn a reasonable amount if distributed widely on Micro portals, in addition to leaving them in other archive which specialize in RM material.

Best to think carefully before sending material to these agencies, though it seems that like it or not, Microstock is here to stay.


Microstock agency guide

Microstock is a low cost Royalty Free license usually for a specific file size, hence comp res earns £1, medium res £3 and high res £5 per download, sometimes larger files fetch more. Micro agencies then pass on commissions in the usual way to the copyright holder and you can take pictures off these portals if you like (most ask six months minimum retention period) at a later date.

While a few pounds, dollars or euros may not sound much, it is likely that your pictures will be used by a wider audience. For instance, a good picture of a Tiger’s head may get used more and earn more on a Micro agency site, than with a traditional Rights Managed agency. Most of these Micro-portals are non-exclusive and there are no laws saying that you can’t offer pics on both systems where there is overlap in your collection or it appears a wise business decision to do so.

So to aid you in this Microstock maze, I hope this guide can be of use:

www.istockphoto.com - one of the first Microstock agencies, has a easy web site and offers browser uploads. This micro-portal has fairly good rates (for this end of the industry) compared to other portals. One snag is you need to send them a photo-ID, as a scan or digital image, which is a bit inconvenient for some.

www.theimagefile.com - is a strange site where you set the RF license fee, which can be set by the photographer to possibly compete with more Micro-focused agencies. Theimagefile also sell RM licensed images, though I had loads of stuff up there for almost a year (as RM) and never made a penny, though it cost about £60 to maintain. It is a handy site if you need to send the same files to many different people and is certainly worth considering for this alone and possibly as a more flexible means of selling work as Micro-licences. There is no editing on theimagefile, though this is it's weak point, as there is a lot of poor work on there and some great pics too.

www.crestock.com - this Norwegian micro-portal is high quality and offers most of the usual bells and whistles (online sales reports, browser upload, FTP, etc). Editing is a bit ridiculous though...I currently have had one image accepted and uploaded about 20! All images which did quite well on the Alamy Images portal (excuse me while I fire my BB gun at the portrait of James West - the CEO - that I have on my wall!). Strange comments are put on rejected images like "poor composition" and it seems that this agency is clueless in this regard. Best avoided.

www.stockphotomedia.com - well, nice site, though I was unable to upload a single image. Perhaps that is for the best!

www.stockxpert.com - is a another Micro-portal where you upload your work via the browser and can view online reports and the like. Again though, there editing is hatstand (i.e. nonsensical), so also perhaps best avoided.

www.featurepics.com - this site is another Micro-portal and is very user-friendly.

www.shutterstock.com - is a nice site, though the commission is tiny, just 25%, calulate carefully before commiting.