What is Macro stock – Revised (Good Reading)
Posted on: November 21, 2009 (34) Comments
What is Macro stock? – Revised
Good Question? Macrostock, also known among microstock photographers as “tradition RF” is not as clear-cut to define against it’s counterpart, microstock, as it once was. Now that Istock has launched their Vetta Collection with prices definitively in the macrostock range (70USD for high res) and this being on a microstock platform, it seems that we are entering a phase of mixed prices for stock images. Fotolia has their Infinite collection with prices even higher than Vetta and these files are also selling alongside low priced images. And in high end agencies such as Getty Images, you can now buy web res for an ultra low price of 50USD.
If you ask them, everybody says they know what microstock is, and most people will say that they know what macrostock is too. “It’s those stock agencies selling images at super high prices”, a true microstocker would say. However, as we can see above, that just is not the case anymore, it’s becoming a mix.
Yesterday I had a visit in my production facility in Denmark by the CEO of ScanPix, a Scandinavian Stock agency that dominates the North European territory. We had an interesting discussion about price. He claimed that the primary reason that their customers would pay big bucks (macrostock prices) for an image today was two things: First, authentic looking images of real people and, second, better service. I agree with this, and find it very interesting, because that is exactly what you will not find in microstock: authentic, candid, natural looking images, and great service.
So instead of asking: “What is macrostock”, we should ask: “What justifies ultra high prices or macro-prices”. According to the CEO of Scanpix there will always be high-end customers that want a different experience and are seeking natural looking images, so the market is not dead by the birth of ultra low price microstock agencies.
As a stock photographer, the defining line between what I should sell at a high price and what I should sell at an ultra low price is crucial. Sending thousands of highly microstock looking images and trying to sell them at a high price just don’t work. I did this, sent these high priced collections, my top “micro” images, and leaned back as I expected the images to sell like crazy. Nothing happened! I learned my lesson. The funny thing is that the type of images that are selling at the higher prices would never sell at all in micro. And even more interestingly, would probably get rejected!
Consider this image that I just got online at Getty Images house collection. You do not get much further away from microstock than that. This image would have been rejected again and again and again on microstock. But last month I just sold this image for 1200USD on Getty.
Take another example: Couple and map, Pizza Teens, and Girl. All these images are selling great on Getty, but would be completely lost in microstock. No one would even notice them.
So here are a couple of things to consider: Some subject matter is simply too normal, too plain, and too natural looking to ever get a chance to compete against the super saturated colorful microstock images, but will be selling like hot-cakes at macro prices and the macro clients will love them. Not only will the images sell at a higher price, but they will be treasured and simply loved by their audience.
The above observation suggests four features as being characteristic of what buyers are willing to pay big bucks for. We can call this macrostock:
1. Subject matter that is styled down and natural looking. Forget about bright backgrounds and colorful clothes, big budgets and super fancy locations.
2. Subject matter that has a distinct cultural flavor and feel. A young group of Spanish looking teenagers in a Spanish looking environment should NOT be sold at microstock prices. First off, it would not be noticed, second, the right Spanish buyers are ready to pay a lot of money for images like that, but would never find it in microstock.
3. Images that is very niche such as “a pottery makers daily life” or “five days with expedition north pole”.
4. Images that are newsworthy. Dreamstime and Shutterstock got this wrong. Editorial images simply need to sell at a higher price because for the microstock royalties of five sales, say, of the major of New York giving a public speech, you do not even have enough to pay the taxi to get there.
You are probably wondering where to start selling your “justifiable higher priced material”. Well, traditional agencies are very hard to get into, so you need to do some research and make sure to put together an application that contains the kind of material that sell at a higher price. The agencies that are worth dealing with in the area of traditional agencies are Getty and Corbis. I wish I could point to more, but there really are none right now. Corbis will give you a slightly better commission but sell a little less than Getty, where the commission is a poor 20%. The return per image in the higher priced collections are about the same as in the micro priced collection, but if you misunderstand what to send where, it will be much lower.
——————————————————————————————————————–
These are just a few of the challenges in this new industry. However, there are also many upsides to microstock. If you are about to enter microstock as a photographer, you can read my “Two minute quick guide to microstock,” which will mention most of the things you need to know about where to sign up, what agencies to submit to, income level etc.
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
here here to point 3!
It sounds very depressing, though many things are very true about microstock. Why are you doing it? Or are you quitting?
Yuri you are right. Microstock opened are completly new market and brought people into the picture market that before newer bought pictures. The High class producters are allways looking for something new. Many Microstockers lost the view for good photography.
Microstock is only a little part of photography. I don,t want to say that is is badder than Macrostockphotography its simply different.
The typical Macrobuyer says show me something that I dont know, the Microbyer. needs a nice photo for an affordable price.
Between this two extrem the frontiers are not clear. Photography is art and creativity. In the arts you must never think in black and white only.
Kind regards
Andreas
There is definitely a ‘meeting in the middle’ occuring with micro prices on the rise and macro agencies increasingly offering more competitive pricing, particularly for RF web res images. I have a foot in both camps and often struggle to decide where some images would be best placed. It is interesting to note Getty have recently opened up submissions from Flickr in the search for more of the real life looking images which as you say are in demand but just don’t work on microstocks.
Interesting read, thanks for sharing. I intent to go into macrostock after just started in microstock. There were some pretty good advices for me here. And the picture samples you show here that sell in Getty are quite interesting. I never really understood the difference between iStockphoto and Getty.
Great post. Nice to see your opinion of what differentiates micro and macro imagery. It was also very interesting seeing some of your sellers at Getty. Agreed – they are quite different that your microstock portfolio and would have likely been rejected (at least some of them) very quickly. It makes a strong point.
Macrostock is not price anymore. It must be a style of shooting. That is basically my argument.
No. The critical aspect are moved to another post.
I tried Corbis and Getty 2 years ago and they said NO NEW MEMBERS. I agree that your shots are much better than mine so I can see why they took you. I went to istock and just went exclusive recently. Now I’m interested in getting in their RM VETTA collection. I guess you will never talk about that venue as you can’t get into it if you are not exclusive. It’s not a bad place to be.
Debbi
I think that Vetta is going to dominate. It will take the other micro agencies too long to follow up and realize how potent that price point is.
I think your post is very interesting and insightful. In some sense it seems counter-intuitive in that the higher price point images (”macrostock”) seem to require less production cost than the lower price point images (”microstock”).
Yes. Very strange. But fortunate that someone will buy that kind of material. I love producing in the macrostock “style”
Hey Yuri,
I am an ex Getty, was heading business and content fr three years frm India for Saarc Countries.
I have recently launched an Indian bank. Its wonderful reading ur perspective. Yes, i do understand more of macro having come from that domain., When its a good concept shot well, it can sell for a good value. Reason being if the image has caught the eye of the buyer and he sees it as critical medium to do better business…he plugs in that cost in the product pricing ! So yes, though i am yet to study patterns of costs versus sales , we did well and Getty continues to be a market leader in spite of macro pricing.
btw, is it fine w u if i post parts of your blog on the groups i run or the blogs i post ( of course along w ur credits) ? Look forward to more interactions …
Cheers
Sugandha
http://www.stockimagebank.com – Beta
I agree your point of view Yuri. I notice that a lot of microstocker, especially new entries, put in MS all they have in their hard disks that will pass Quality check. I see a lot of images in the MS that maybe will sell 20 times in five years. Microstock is the wrong place for these images too, as well as there is a few demand on very vertical niche. I am working on a project of traditional regional food. Is not like Pizza, that you can sell from Alaska to Aouth Africa. Very narrow demand require more high price and the saleabilty are very small.
I think this is the case of travel pictures: only the very iconic pictures can sell in micro (tour eiffel, Colosseum, goldengate, big ben, etc.); will sell only some time images less iconic, and don’t pay himself the cost of uploads
Sure. Hang around. Post link back with related anchor text.
cool ! U sure are Good ! I will perhaps meet you sometime soon when traveling to Europe. U are most welcome to travel to India., Would be nice to catch up ! Cheers n God Bless. U can join my FB Group, u can reach it via my site home page
Hey Yuri… this is a post, it seems this week is starting from the right side
I’d like to point out the new John Lund’s post “Interview with Stock Photo Team Trinette Reed and Chris Gramly” http://www.johnlund.com/2009/11/interview-with-stock-photo-team.html
There are some considerations about this phase of mixed prices for stock images
Take care,
roberto
Very nice post Yuri. Thanks.
Greetings from Salzburg. Amir
P.S. It´s almost a year ago since we met in Berlin.
what you think about Alamy?
I use it. Good. Takes a little time uploading to the site
Now you are talking. Good point. And those categories should never be mixed. Real, rare and artistic images should go for higher prices. And having microstock images with traditional agencies is never a good idea. Not for yourself not for the industry as a whole.
Hey Yuri! Thanks a lot for the post! I’ve always wondered exactly about this. images that I’ve never sent to microstock sites because I know they’d never get accepted, such as a witch in La Paz, Bolivia, indians in the Amazon, etc… I never thought about giving macrostock a try because I thought it would be too hard and too “professional” for my experience. I’ll give it a try! I just wanted to know a little about sales! I image you earn more from microstock than macrostock, am I right? Is there any way to compare earnings between both?
Thanks a lot, again!
Dan
Getty is easy to get into through Flickr. http://blog.gettyimages.com/2009/11/05/the-flickr-collection-by-getty-images-announces-call-for-artists/
Have you tried? Not that easy to get accepted.
My post at the top of this page must be one of those tecnho-jokes you spoke of in your other article. I wrote that for a completely different feature you posted.
With reference to Getty. I can’t understand what is going on with them!?! I submitted work nearly two years ago which was excepted as ‘photographers choice’ as it will be now-a-days (a friend of mine and one of the top wildlife and nature photographers in the UK also has to submit his work as Photographers choice), but they still haven’t made it into the collection yet. Even after numerous emails and calls I continue to be told they are being dealt with and they will go live within a couple of weeks. Each time those two weeks pass I have to call again and explain that I’m still waiting. It has reached the point were I will not have to pay the $50 fee for uploading the next batch of images to the ‘PC’ collection due to the inconvenience I’m having to injure – but it still goes on. It just amazes me that the leaders in the traditional stock market conduct themselves this way. Newbies are gonna find this avenue difficult if all are treated the same way as i have been. Rant over…………..
Yes, I’m a Getty Contributor.
Yeah…I don’t know. You might be right Yuri. When I first started with the Getty/Flickr collection they were accepting just about every photo I threw at them. Now they have drasticallly tightened up and in my last submission I only had 3 accepted out of 56. I still think they will let technicals slide a little if the content is good.
Great to hear your thumbs up on Vetta…
Greetings from El Salvador
Eduardo
Hi Yuri, thanks for the great info!
Just wondering, when you say
“The return per image in the higher priced collections are about the same as in the micro priced collection”
Do you mean your micro image collection across all micro channels combined has the same RPI and Getty alone, or are you referring to a single micro channel?
were’s the link you were boasting about? Being one of the most influential photographers of 2010?
I used key words in google including “most influential stock photography of 2010″ and “most influential photographers of 2010″ no results. Whats the link?
Thanks,
Rob
[...] What is Macro Stock Photography? Sharing is Caring [...]
[...] because the industry seems to have been turned upside down. The content which looks like UGC is all the rage at Getty and other traditional agencies, created by professional photographers (and recently Flickr [...]