| |
7. Who is losing ?
7.1. Introduction
Since the start of Microstock sites there has been a lively debate wether Microstock sites are killing the stock business or not. Especially from the side of the traditional stockindustry a lot of arguments against Microstock sites has been brought forward.
One of the arguments against Microstock sites often heard is that photography in general and the submitters in particular are the great losers of this new model.
The main reasons,according to those who are against Microstock sites, are that the sales prices and the commissions are too low, not reasonable.
To illustrate this, I'll quote an article on PhotographersDirect.com underneath, you can read the whole article here
start quote
Why will Photographers Direct not represent photographers who have images on microstock / micropayment sites?
Because they are the antithesis of Fair Trade Photography. Microstock sites (which sell Royalty Free images for 1 to 3 dollars) prey on the lack of industry-experience of amateur photographers.
The only people who benefit from these sites are:
1. The site owners, because they make money from the images and do not care about the damage they are doing to professional photographers' livelihoods.
2. The buyers, who cannot believe their luck at being able to get images for a few dollars, and being able to use them as often as they like, for as long as they like, wherever they like.
end quote
Is this really true ? Are site owners exploiting amateur photographers with a lack of industry-experience ? Are the only who benefit from this model, the site owners and buyers ? Do we degrade our images buy selling them so cheap ?
Let's try to find an answer to these questions in the following paragraphs.
7.2. Is photography in general a loser ?
How can photography be a loser just because you're asking less for an image ?
Honestly, I've have no idea. It's not because you pay or get paid more for an image that this image is better. Besides, ´photography in general´ doesn't care about the prices paid.
If this whole ´micro-thing´ influences the photography at all, I think it would be in a positive way. The more people trying to take better pictures and trying to improve themselves, the better it is for ´photography in general´
I must admit that taking pictures of objects on a white background or of a girl working on a laptop isn't the most creative activity, this can be seen as a disadvantage. But this isn't a disadvantage of the Microstock sites in particular, it is one of the whole stock industry in general.
7.3. Photographers who submit are the losers ?
The reason for saying this is obvious. Microstock sites don't pay well, this is no secret. If those who submit would calculate their earnings per hour, I think you could hardly speak of an income. I won't deny that. But are they therefore losers ?
If someone would quit their job or would buy an expensive body or lens just to take pictures for Microstock sites before they really know if they can make a living out of it or if they could earn that body or lens back, I guess you can say they ´lost´.
But I don't see why an amateur (and most who submit at those sites are amateurs), who tries to sell his pictures can be a loser. They only thing he can loose is his time, and being an amateur, time is free :-) .
I would take it a step further. I think someone submitting can only win !! Why ?
Because a submitter wants to make his pictures as good as possible so they will sell well. By doing this he will/must improve himself on the technical aspect, in post-processing and any other aspect which makes a photo a good one. The money which can be earned stimulates this process. Therefor I think an amateur submitting to these sites can only lose his time, but can certainly gain a lot of experience.
7.4. Who are the real losers ?
Now we come to the part were we'll see why there are so many photographers against Microstock sites.
I don't think anyone submitting nor photography itself is a losing party in this. But I can certainly think of one category of people who don't like these developments.
In any segment were amateurs take a piece of the cake, professionals aren't too happy because they fear to lose customers. Micro's are certainly taking a big bite out of that ´stock-pie´.
Microstock sites don't influence the sales of the high end stockphotography yet. But they certainly chew on the sales of the mid and low end. So photographers who had to make a living with a similar kind of photos which are now offered by the micro stock sites will certainly see some slump in their sales. Those photographers certainly aren't too happy.
Such a professional has two options.
1) make sure he gets better in order to do more high end stuff or
2) joining Microstock sites.
Although option number 2 seems strange, I know some of those pro's who have done this in order to keep their business figure up. That's truly "If you can't beat them, join them".
A second group which is against Microstock sites are the amateurs, who already submit a long time to macrostocks, and want to make as many $$$ from their images as possible. They are seeing their business disappear and have actually no options. Often their images or not better or even worse than those offered at the microsites. So they don't have many options.
7.5. Conclusion
Digital photography did hurt many professional wedding- and portrait-photographers. Now Microstock sites are doing the same with the average professional stockphotographer. The only way they can stay successful is to specialize, but those who can't distinguish themselves from the crowd will certainly have a rough time ahead.
| |
|
|
|
