Microstock images also frequently tend to pop up in uses that are quite embarrassing to someone else using the same image. The cost of this cannot be calculated.

I do think photographers are starting to realize microstock is the fast track to bankruptcy and the better ones are avoiding it… and I think image clients who were once thrilled to have such cheap images available are now starting to realize the risks associated with using them.
Mark

To me, the maths doesn’t add up for the client particularly well. If a designer buys an image for a client web site, they might easily pay something like $10 per image if they’re not a high-volume customer. The iStockphoto T&Cs stipulate that the image can only be used in one media for one client, so let’s say a web page use. The client isn’t allowed to use that image for any other media (printed or electronic). The image is generic, non-exclusive and not specifically tailored to the client.

When I do a day’s commissioned work, producing bespoke, unique and exclusive imagery for the client, it tends to work out at around £45 per image (including all costs). Even this can vary, but I’m using general figures here to illustrate the point. My client is then licensed to use that image for ALL their uses (3rd-parties excluded of course). So if they use one of the images for web, e-newsletter, brochure, annual report, whatever they can think of really (I tend to exclude advertising use unless agreed and built into the fees) the cost of the individual images tumbles to less than the cost of a microstock image.

The problem I’m having is getting designers to realise this and convincing them that they should be selling this concept to their clients. Wherever possible I approach clients direct of course, but designers are often the first point of contact with a creative professional that a client will have.

Whatever the microstock apologists say, microstock is also eroding the creative commissioned market because it’s a great way for lazy or unimaginative web and graphic designers to fill their designs with “cheap” eyecandy.

Let’s not also forget the environmental impact of tens of millions of image files sitting on servers which have to run 24/7, many of which will never even be downloaded or used. Not forgetting the harm of tens of thousands of photographers driving out to shoot pictures which statistically speaking, nobody wants.

At least when I turn on my engine, I know I’m off to take pictures somebody wants and needs.

Again, in economic theory, the way to get out of this is to provide a scarce product that cannot be easily replicated. I don’t even think that great creativity can help you be a scarce commodity in the stock industry anymore – and it will only get harder. Stock photography is doomed – success for most photographers will result from supplying the market with scarce goods, such as assignment work related to events and situations that cannot be replicated by anyone else or which demand exclusivity, and I recommend this kind of thinking for budding photographers. A classic example is wedding photography – I would hate to do it, but people recognise the value of capturing their unique event. That unique event is scarce and can therefore command more money. There are plenty of other types of photography where this idea of scarcity applies so there is still hope for photographers – it’s just not in stock!

I have to tell you… I brag that I actually was this sexy guys ex-girlfriend;) drunken reply:)

Couldn’t agree more!

Billy- you are absolutely right that the market is changing. It has been changing for a long time and will continue to do so for a long time to come.
This means that yes, we do have to change the way that we creatives operate our businesses to make the most of these changes.
However! to pretend that images are worth less just because they are now easier to steal is the crippling blow to many would-be professionals. For years so many photographers have licensed web usage at discounted rates or just tacked them on the bottom of a print license for free. To be fair, many clients grounded in traditional media have taken the electronic game seriously enough to pull budget however it is photographers’ willingness to let clients downplay the value of electronic rights that has set a very unfortunate precedent for all of us.
Thankfully as more & more of my traditional clients (& potential clients) are catching up & finally understanding the true value of being online (not just having a website, but having a great web presence as a financial PRIORITY) the budgets are magically reappearing. There is no reason that web rates should be lower except that we have allowed the perception that that they should be lower.
Based on clients’ lowered overheads, increasing & more targeted ad exposure & a more effective consumer engagment that the e-medium facilitates, online marketing techniques are yielding much larger profit margins… so why should the images be worth less?
If you want run a healthy business, as markstout says, then it is up to YOU to know the real value of your work & take it seriously.

-J.

–
Manufacturers Shift Marketing Dollars Online-
http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/data-center/research/e3i33318fd8458cbc088591e219b86fe596

Shops Spend Less on Traditional Media-
http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/data-center/research/e3i111888fc4afd5a6a3a5fa5d9211c0d70

A short & entertaining video demonstrating how clients attempt to dictate the value of our work.
http://www.joshcaple.com/blog/?p=212

Nor is this post about stock photography – it is about the unique images you refer to being used in violation of copyright laws and what photographers are doing to themselves when they fail to educate themselves on licensing practices (or worse, give their work away free), and the value of the work. Yes, you can steal an image of a whale off the internet free, but if you make the mistake of stealing one that belongs to a professional who protects his copyrights, you will find it might have been cheaper to fund an excursion out to the deep seas for some whaling photos of your own. More and more photographers are doing this. And photographer who fails to do that will fail no matter what business model he/she engages in. If you don’t understand and protect the value of your work, no one else will either. There is no shortage of those out there who will take advantage of a photographer’s lack of business knowledge.

I have a number of links off to the right with articles and organizations who will help you find the information you need to profit as a photographer in this changing environment.

It used to be, if you loved photographing whales, and were good enough, you could sell whale images for a pretty good price, one that could cover your costs. Well, I can get a whale photo for a dollar legally, and free if I ignore the law (importantly, its quicker to get it free).

The market is changing, and we need to realise it. As for me, I am focused on selling my services, not products, and making my work unique so people will want to continue to work with me.