The Royalty Free Photo

Traditional or Micro-stock Marketing

Once the decision has been made to market an image in the Royalty Free (RF) business model, the next question becomes, should that image be placed as RF with a traditional stock photo agency or would it make more sense to upload it to a micro-stock outlet.

The difference in the two options centers on their pricing. In both cases the license for the image will include basically unlimited usage for one fee. At a traditional stock agency that fee will be between $50 and $500, depending on the agency and the size of the image licensed. Microstock agencies will typically license the same image for between $0.23 and $15, again depending on the agency and the size of the image licensed.

On the face of it the choice seems simple, go with the higher priced model to maximize your royalties. Were it only that simple. Three factors get in the way of this appealing logic; agency availability, demand and price competition.

For a variety of reasons it is becoming increasingly difficult, if not downright impossible, to obtain representation by a traditional stock agency. And even more difficult to find one that will actually be effective in licensing your images. The big three in the field, Getty, Corbis and Jupiter are looking more and more for image ownership. When they own the image they do not have to pay royalties. As a result they use more work for hire production and rely even more on in house staff. It is my understanding that Corbis no longer accepts new freelance photographers and you would have to be truly gifted to be considered by either Getty or Jupiter.

The big three agencies, and particularly Getty, dominate the market. Some industry observes describe the remainder of the competition as a fight over Getty’s table scraps. You can still outlet your RF images at a place like Alamy or agefotostock, but your sales are likely to be minute.

It may not, therefore, be either possible or practical to place your RF images at a traditional stock photo agency.

One of the big reasons that traditional stock agency sales of RF material outside of the big three is likely to be small, and one of the reasons generally that you should not be seduced by the higher prices offered by these agencies is that price has a significant effect on demand. We are back to basic economics here. In theory, an RF image priced at $500 is going to have a substantially lower demand than will the same image priced at $15. In fact, depending on the image quality and content, the demand at $15 could be so much greater that the eventual sales of that $15 image dwarfs that of the $500 image. It is difficult to say in a time of changing business models whether the theory holds true, but it does make sense and is rational. As such, it is another blow to the simplistic logic that you should try marketing your RF images with a traditional stock photo agent.

The most important reason to place your RF imagery with micro stock agencies is price competition. If you have determined that your image should be marketed as RF under the guidelines I have previously given (see RM vs RF) then the image in question does not have attributes that make it unique enough to stand out in a crowd. Without this product differentiation, the licensing of your image is going to be a strictly price driven affair. Given two similar images, the rational consumer is going to select the one with the lower price. If you image is RF, it is, by definition, similar to other images.

There is no point in putting a RF image with a traditional agency that carries a higher price. It will not sell. When you have a RF image the only rational choice is to place it with a microstock agent.

Traditional stock photographers (most of whom hate RF anyway) do not want this to be true. But new technologies have created new forms of competition that require new ways of thinking.

Royalty Free, outside of a microstock, is irrational. It has no competitive advantage. It will not sell and you should not waste your time.