Stock buyers are geeks…are you?
Posted on: April 18, 2009 (27) CommentsHave you ever stopped to really think about who your buyers are? Well I have and guess what—they’re design geeks. Design geeks are a breed of their own. They care more than you can imagine about small details, and they love images with subtle messages that don’t bonk them over the head. If you can learn how to give design geeks what they want, microstock will be very kind to you.
I have a "test group" of some of my most prominent buyers. I often discuss specific shoots with them and I sometimes like to pick their brains in general interviews. The info they give me is crucial and very very very (very) helpful. In this post I’ll give you an overview of things they’ve told me that initially came as a surprise.
1. Subtle is better then loud… (Yes….we get it, alright!)
When it comes to a really great stock image, less is more. Let me just say that again: less is more. Really. Have you never done a shoot and thought, "I nailed it! This will sell like hotcakes," but when you got it online sales were dismal? In this case, maybe your images were too literal. Designers will often provide comments like: "no no no… this is too corny, too bold, or too straight forward." Translation: if you spell a concept out too plainly, your image has no magic. Subtlety equals sophistication.
Consider the shot to the right. We don’t need any more information to understand that this is two young people in love relaxing on the beach. Because the image is subtle, it appeals and actually speaks volumes. In it there hints of things we don’t see but are led to imagine, which is great.
You know how when you read a great book and then see the movie, it’s the movie that often disappoints? Well, why were you disappointed? Because the literal interpretation wasn’t anything like what your imagination could cook up. The subtle images I’m talking about are more like the intriguing book and less like the literal spell-it-out movie.
An image where less is more screams "fill in the missing slots yourself" and suddenly you’re involved and you love it…. Well no wonder! You designed it in your own imagination.
2. It’s about the story
In microstock everybody tries to make blockbuster superhit images (me included) but lately I’ve come to realize that if I want to be a step ahead I need to shift gears… downward. Today my shootplan is nearly empty. It contains hardly any pictures that I want to redo. What is does contain is a lot of text. Now in my planning, I focus on telling the story of a shot. How did the people get here? What are the still-life images in the environment that support the story? What are the props needed for making the shot look real? With this kind of planning I can shoot a concept and end up with many images that will convey a running story using the same subject matter.
Why do I do this? It’s because my buyers constantly keep saying the same thing: "when we find an image we like, we will most often need more then one image from that shoot and we often cannot find even the most simple images from such shoots." My
buyers say they will pass on a great image if the rest of the images from that shoot are missing or not usable for some reason. This is a problem for agencies like iStock, which have upload limits that force photographers to upload their best shots only and destroy the coherency of the shoot.
3. Be different or be dead
My buyers tell me they are simply sooooooo tired of seeing the same shots over and over again. They say microstock lacks creativity. I will rephrase this, because I personally don’t think microstock lacks creativity, however I do agree that it’s missing a certain something. That “something” is shots done outside the photographer’s comfort zone.
When big traditional agencies talk about the characteristics of great stock photographers, they don’t mention the ability to create stunning photos. They do mention the ability to create rare shots. If you want to stand out from the crowd instantly, execute shoots that are hard to plan, hard to shoot and hard to do.
Many microstock photographers have had their photographic self-esteem shoot through the roof over the last couple of years. They’ve jumped from amateur to pro, and they’ll often approach traditional agencies with gusto and then be baffled as to why their application was turned town.
Well, the bad news for these photographers is that the big agencies do not consider them to be true professionals. They are "comfort" shooters, and these are a dime a dozen. There will be very little room for comfort shooters in the future of microstock and I predict we will see a lot of forum whining as these kinds of shooters start losing income, fast. The good news is that if you’re willing to go the extra mile, you will be one of the few and you’ll face less competition.
4. The devil is in the details
Often, buyers say: "I was just about to download this perfect business shoot and when I looked closer, the girl had a freaking tattoo on her neck!" In a way we’ve never seen before, microstock is the "handyman, improvised, mixed together, do-it-yourself" of stock photography. Tennis socks showing under business suits, overt sexuality in the wrong context, inappropriately young businesspeople, weird looking clothes, weird looking models, weird location, weird haristyle. etc. are a huge turnoff to buyers. Be critical of your pictures. Scrutinize them and decide what does and doesn’t belong.
And speaking of leaving a little to the imagination…The biggest and most ironic error I see all the time is the cleavage mistake. While shooting serious subject matter a photographer gets carried away a little and thinks "well if I like what I’m seeing, chances are that other people will too!"… Um, NOOOOOOOO! They won’t! EVER! I have seen so many micro photographers’ shoots start out really neat and professional, and then step-by-step denigrate into what looks like a softporn covershoot. Sheesh. Keep it inside your pants and focus on what you’re doing!
5. Too "model looking"
An interesting trend I’ve noticed is that when it comes to models, there can be too much of a good thing. Contrary to what you might think, models with the widest appeal are not of the uber-high-end-four-coats-of-varnish variety. In fact, real, down-to-earth, everyday people are what sell. Our buyers want healthy, friendly and energetic models with a genuine warmth and a personality we can all relate to. The quintessential girl or boy next door with a twinkle in their eye. These people translate as more real and they naturally bring an open warmth that everyone can feel.
Look at the couple on the beach to the right. Does this look real? These two people just look like two models on a beach in my eyes….which they are. They are toooooo good looking to be real, approachable and genuine.
Think about beauty campaigns put on by big cosmetic companies. Who are their models? Scary looking runway vixens? Uh, no. More like real people that you or I would love to hang out with. When you’re sourcing your models, keep this in mind. And when you’re shooting, remember that this natural genuine energy is what you’re going for. If your model starts with the plastic fake posing, stop them, engage them (get them relaxed and comfortable), re-set, and start again.
So, to recap, put yourself in the (stylish, high-end patent leather) shoes of your design-geek buyer friends. Give them intriguing images that hint at a story. Give them rare shots they haven’t seen a million times. Consider and tend to all the little details that might ruin an otherwise great picture. And give them warm, friendly, down-to-earth models. Give them what they want wrapped up in a nice package and you’ll not only stand out, you’ll become indispensable.
Stumble This
Add to Del.icio.us
Microstock Agencies – An Overview for Beginners
What should I shoot and what sells well?
New tool – projected monthly income calculator
Video Episode 6 – Non-obvious smart things to have in a studio
Styling: Pure Hell or a place to “shine”.
Clash of the Titans – Canon 1Ds Mark III vs Nikon D3X for Stock
I spy with my little eye
5 is missing; are you hiding something from us? :}
Thanks for sharing!
you fixed it so now I look like a fool
Awsome post Yuri very helpful.
Thanks for sharing with us.
Yes. 5 was missing. Not hiding anything. Typo
Just saw your post before Lobo locked it on Istock.
This is a great post Yuri. I would definitely agree that subtle is better. I’ve started working for a very conservative ad agency (which I’m sure most are like), and one of my responsibilities is finding stock photos. We’re always looking for the real image. Being from the South and designing for the South, I must say that the southern look is highly under represented in ‘normal’ looks. After university lets out for the summer, I’m going for a turn around in representing the South.
I’ve also started shooting conceptual still-life. (Not very much seeing as school gets in the way of having time to do anything) What do you think of conceptual still-life photography?
By the way, are you still looking for assistants?
Good article. Keep it in your pants – LOL it’s so true. Can’t stand it when I see a series of images that are unrealistic. People don’t dress slutty in real office settings, unless they are Hooters waitresses. So why would they get purchased like that? I’m a designer – and I agree with a lot of what you’ve said here. Anything like tattoos, zits, moles are just things that are going to make more work for us.
Design geeks do think differently. They are wacky people, almost always with great senses of humor. I speak not only for myself, but for every other designer I’ve ever worked with or know personally.
“They are wacky people, almost always with great senses of humor”
Heheh, I’m sure you are Todd, I mean, for a group of people who dislikes clevage, tattoos and girls dressed slutty.. You lot are as fun as they come ;P
Sorry.. it had to be said
It’s all jokes really, you can take it 
Absolutely all true…the key as you know, Yuri, is to get the ‘real’ people look without the models looking like someone you’d actually meet walking down the street…unless that street was around Madison AV and 64th street in NYC where everyone is great looking. Too many microstock photographers think that ‘real’ means anyone, warts and all. PS as for the business cleavage thing…add age to that. Real people in management are usually older than 24.
even back in germany I still enjoy your advise. it´s always nailed to the point. thx for sharing!
Betcy. You said: “Just saw your post before Lobo locked it on Istock.”
Did you see the comment on “shameless selfpromotion”. That is way out of line. Can no-one see how much this guy is hurting IS?
Jakob, det kunne vaere sjovt at se om de ogsaa sletterede indlaeget hvis du have linket til din side istedet for at copy/paste det. Jeg har set flere af deres “egne” linke til deres blogs utallige gange uden at traadene blev laast
Great post – thanks for sharing!
As for IS…I’m not suprised. The few questions I have posted on there have been met with derogatory comments from Admins and Exclusive members. Now I only post on the forum there when I have my blog stats for footage up each month (still met with some derogatory comments from a certain exclusive).
Daniel. English Only. I think your suggestion would have worked however.
Great post Yuri!! It’s amazing how you keep helping a lot microstock photographers out there even with the turn downs that sometimes life gives you… or IS! Those forums are sometimes way too disapointing… I have my own share of bad experiences.
Your hints are most precious, and although I’m starting at this business I follow almost all of your advices and build my own creativity over it. Sometimes it seems to difficult to be different of everyone else with so many photographers out there… but it’s challenging and I’m working hard to get my own spot in the sun!
When are you releasing new videos? You already have one on YouTube that it’s not on your blog… The short interview to Cecilie.
Congrats on so much work! Good luck to the future
Miguel
Thank you so much for your support Miguel.!
I will be doing three new videos on Friday. I will release them very soon.
Excellent post Yuri as always. I needed my fix
I can understand where he is coming from somewhat, but what’s in worth to stop a good discussion. You have raised the bar for all of us. Hurting Istock might be a stretch, but I can see that they have bias against non-exclusive contributors. If you want Istock to publish your writings, maybe you should submit to their articles section.
Betsy. Im confused. You said “hurting Istock”?
I just want to let out a huge belly-laugh at the idea that you would want to do anything to hurt iStock, EVER! With the amount of business they do with your images, one would think they would understand that. I really think it has more to do with them second-guessing their upload limits. You have provided excellent arguments for why this policy needs modification. As for the “self-promotion” statement, well, if “self-promotion” is giving the rest of us, for no more than 6 minutes of our time, information that is CRUCIAL to our survival and the survival of microstock as a whole, then keep on promoting, brother! I for one, am listening.
Shameless? Sophisticated language..
Jealousy i think – of him of course (moderator).
Must be new at work or maybe drunk, cause there is no need to think a lot to see that Your ‘picture’ is a MASSIVE bait to all ’stockers’ and wannabe’s.
and the competition grows but not so badly (such JOKE;)).
Same with that article, when people start to cry about 0 DL and so on, such infos-posts keeps them alive.
I’ve commented that at SS cause You give even too much knowledge to people, but the good is that not everybody understands
Finally i want to personally send a big thanks to You for one simple trick that i knew, i did read about, i’ve heard and did NEVER tried to use (me – doubtful me). That trick was the -Canon mirror up-. At last tried that after watching one of Your tutorials and i’m angry as for today cause that belief in Canon’s IS was so naive strong! They got me. So keep up the good work;), lucky me with my different image subjects.
Yuri, in your comment prior to my response, you said, “Can no-one see how much this guy is hurting IS?”
I assumed that you meant that Lobo was hurting IS (Istock.) I didn’t mean to imply that you were doing the hurting. I meant that it might be a stretch to say that enforcing forum rules by locking your thread is a stretch. It doesn’t help, but most people are going to continue shooting the same way regardless of your thread. I for one, am going to try to shoot differently, but will likely fail and end up with some kitschy, useless stuff.
Question to Yuri and those reading this comment board:
Do you think it is important to specialize and shoot a specific kind of stock?
Do you think that still-life concept shooting is a commercially viable specialty?
Nice column, Yuri. If there is anyone who I would take some advice from, it is you. I like the way you second guess the obvious — Like more cleavage is better
As a submitter *and* user, I know exactly what you mean. A top automotive client doesn’t want and/or can’t use the Hooters girl in their presentation, no matter how beautiful she might be.
Betsy: Excellent Q’s.
You wrote:
Do you think it is important to specialize and shoot a specific kind of stock?
Absolutely. With the kind of competition today you really need specialization. Specialize as much as possible, but don’t specialize in a non-selling niche subject matter however.
Do you think that still-life concept shooting is a commercially viable specialty?
Yes. But there are some really great shooters out there. I can’t compete in this area. The guys shooting still life are just too damn good!
Hi Yuri,
Thanks for that article – I don’t know how you find the time to research and write such in depth features as well as run your business. Fantastic (written) English by the way – Anyway thanks for sharing!
I have always believed in info sharing and continue to do so as long as people want to ask me questions.
I’m new to micro stock, been trading for just over six months now and I’m beginning to see a good return. However, I read with interest about using real (girl next door) models. I have used new up-and-coming people so far that want to break into modelling, which tend to be more real looking and not the great commercial models that you refer to in your couple on the beach shoot, but I can see the trillions of sales generated by this couple through your port aswell as see them in print all over the place so I’ve pondered on investing more into people to get that ‘commercial’ look for my own shoots. I would suspect designers buy good looking people images because, well, we all like a pretty face after all and many people react differently to attractive people. For instance, an advertising agency and art director would use this type of model (your beach couple) to advertise sun lotion say, as to entice people into buying it. I believe a pale couple with crooked teeth may not do the same even if it were a good representation of my fellow countryman here in the UK – just kidding there are some good looking people here! With that said, I’ve found my best selling images are all of the above you mentioned. My partner who is a beautiful Scandinavian like your models, who works in the care industry, posed for a shoot with her clients – real people, old, over seventy infact and in their own homes along with there dated curtains. Although I would never say the images are award winners, each shoot has a story attached, conceptual background and real looking people involved. These are by a million miles my most successful shots to date and the reason why I can pay my bills everyday!
My conclusion is this: Perhaps there is room for both types of model, it just depends on what content they are used. It still requires plenty of thought and planning on the photographers behalf. Look at magazines which contain lifestyle images and study the supermarket shelves for the faces that sell the products and plan around what you see already works.
You got me thinking however, so thank you. I won’t go and spent profusely on commercial models just yet until my planned briefs require it.
Just to add finally. There is a daily ’soap’ ,series whatever you want to call it, called ‘Hollyoaks’ here in the UK that my partner forces me to watch – um honest!. It has a target audience of millions and is repeated repeated repeated everyday. One of you images (of cecilie, grey top, side on, isolated) appeared printed on a poster in a bus stop during a scene today. Just thought you may like to know your image has been viewed by millions in the UK.
Cheers look forward to sharing more info in the future.
Dean
Good for people to know.
To Dean Mitchell. Writing and blogging is my hobby. Microstock is pays my bills. Psychology (I still study) keeps me sharp and training keeps me alive.
There’s a middleman between the stock buyer and photographer, I’m planning to do some shoots regarding mental health, Rejection hurts.