# Would you welcome 70% royalties on your stock image sales



## Nevstock (Jun 10, 2012)

I have worked in the stock photo industry for the past 15 years and currently run a successful independent stock image agency called Wildcard Images.

I am however looking to set up a new agency with a new approach giving more benefits to contributors and I am looking for photographers feedback as to whether they would welcome such a type of agency as the one I am looking to establish.

As well as running Wildcard, I also personally shoot images for other stock agencies.
With my involvement on both sides of the industry, it has become increasingly apparent the Photographers are not being rewarded for their efforts with the emergence of low priced micro stock and royalty payment to photographers being as low as 30% with some stock agencies.

I believe that there is now scope for change.
The new agency I am proposing would pay to contributors a royalty payment of 70% on all Rights Managed and Royalty Free image sales.

All major stock agencies have a distribution network where photographers images are supplied to 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] party agencies for sale in global territories, this system generates as much as 75% of photographers stock sales.

The new agency I am proposing would not make direct sales but instead utilise this distribution network, placing photographers images with the top agencies around the world.
Buy cutting direct selling the agency would not need to employ sales staff 
and direct marketing, meaning that these savings can be passed onto photographers in the form of a higher 70% royalty payment rate.

The new agency site would still have a searchable database and buyers would still be able to view photographers work, with a link to all the global agencies where the images can be purchased.
The new agency site would also give contributors back end site access to upload new material directly onto the site ensuring that work is online and available for sale as soon as possible.

Any feedback form photographers (especially those who already supply stock imagery) as to whether they would interested in contributing to an agency such as to one I am proposing would be greatly received.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 10, 2012)

Good luck!  This idea comes up every two-three months here, and so far, I'm not aware of anyone who has acheived measurable success with it.  The simple fact is that to compete with established stock agencies like Getty, you're going to need a massive number of extremely high quality images and they're going to have be priced significantly below what people pay now.  It's a great idea, but then, in theory, so is communism.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 10, 2012)

LOL. What kind of question is that? Who wouldn't welcome 70%?


----------



## Buckster (Jun 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> LOL. What kind of question is that? Who wouldn't welcome 70%?


We're talking stock prices that are already too low to begin with at established firms like Getty,and any upstart is going to have to complete with that price structure while using a smaller database of images, as already mentioned by tirediron.

70% of the chump change currently being paid in that industry doesn't exactly blow my skirt up.  Even 100% of the chump change currently being paid in that industry make it questionable how much time and effort it's worth to even put into preparing and uploading and monitoring and dealing with it.

Unless you've got some _*REALLY*_ hot, unique images that are selling like hotcakes in microstock, you might as well set up a postcard store on your front porch, for all the money that market generally brings in these days for the individual photographer.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 10, 2012)

My point was that with the existing industry paying 30% at most, including Getty, who wouldn't want 70%? Whether that structure is viable, I kind of doubt it.

I agree that it'd be hard for Nev here to compete with Getty, but at the same time it'd be easier for individual photographers to comepete with one another at a smaller agency than at a mega agency like Getty or Corbis.


----------



## Overread (Jun 10, 2012)

Didn't one of the big bosses of the Stock industry (or maybe it was the micro stock industry) basically say  that the industry itself is basically a ticking time bomb before it implodes due to the fact that they've devalued their trading product so much that its now almost worthless not just to the photographer, but also to the industry itself.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 10, 2012)

unpopular said:


> My point was that with the existing industry paying 30% at most, including Getty, who wouldn't want 70%? Whether that structure is viable, I kind of doubt it.
> 
> I agree that it'd be hard for Nev here to compete with Getty, but at the same time it'd be easier for individual photographers to comepete with one another at a smaller agency than at a mega agency like Getty or Corbis.


We're talking images that sell for a couple of dollars - literally.  How much time and effort are you willing to put into getting another 40 or 80 CENTS into your hands, or even $4 bucks, assuming you could sell one of your images for 10 bucks?

A time magazine cover a few years ago earned the photographer a whopping $30 from a stock agency, as I recall.  He'd have gotten an extra $12 bucks out of the deal with a 40% markup.  Big whoop!  And he probably has 100's of photos prepared and uploaded that just sit there, earning nothing, as buyers choose one of the MILLIONS of others that are essentially just like them.


----------



## Overread (Jun 10, 2012)

Yeah unless you've a massive portfolio chances are you'll get more selling a few prints at a local coffee shop or country fair than you will on stock. In the past maybe, but since digital its a dead market if you want any money.


----------



## unpopular (Jun 10, 2012)

I knew it was a bum deal. But that's just absurd - especially for studio work which takes a lot of time and effort.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 10, 2012)

Overread said:


> Didn't one of the big bosses of the Stock industry (or maybe it was the micro stock industry) basically say  that the industry itself is basically a ticking time bomb before it implodes due to the fact that they've devalued their trading product so much that its now almost worthless not just to the photographer, but also to the industry itself.


If they didn't, they should have.  It's a fact!


----------



## Nevstock (Jun 10, 2012)

Thanks for all your comments but I think we have gone a bit off track.


Before I shell out thousands of pounds to create a new website and database, I simply want to test the water
as to whether there was any interest in a new agency that does not sell images to clients directly, but instead 
distributes photographers work through a network of the best agencies within individual territories.



I also would say that it is a no brainer that photographers would prefer 70% instead of 40%, but business is not that simple.



I too also agree that the stock industry is a ticking time bomb, but for only for those agencies that devalue the imagery and there contributors.
Stock imagery will always be needed, but a what cost is yet to be decided


In laymen's terms, what i am asking is: 
Would photographers be interested in an agency that did not sell images directly to buyers, but instead used a network of distributing agencies (which would include Getty and Corbis) to sell the work, and in return receive royalties of 70%?



All I am looking for is simple yes or no answers, but if you would like to add a little more please feel free
If you like the idea say Yes if not say No.



Many thanks


----------



## Buckster (Jun 10, 2012)

I think what we've said already is pretty easy to interpret so far:

At 30% or 70%, there's no money in stock anymore, so why would we be interested?

Maybe someone else will bite though.


----------



## Overread (Jun 10, 2012)

Why would Ghetty pay you more for royalties to a photo? If they won't then your profit per photo would be identical to that of a normal photographer. At which point the subject raised of the tiny amounts per photo would mean that you would have to shift a massive amount of photos to the stock agencies just to break even. 

Furthermore, why would a photographer stick with you? You might be giving them 70% but that is 70% of the potential 100% they could get dealing direct with the stock agency. And chances are if they had more than one photo go through a single agency they would start to deal with them direct rather than have a middleman in the process (a process which - as said - has totally unsustainable levels of pay).


In short your trying to be a middleman setup - but there is so little room for profit that it would only work upon the massive scale - and I suspect you'd have a major problem setting things up (esp since any stock agency would want to have sole access to any photo - and if they don't require that chances are the photographer can get just as much trade from the agency just multiple listing the photos themselves direct - without a middleman.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Jun 10, 2012)

Nevstock said:


> Thanks for all your comments but I think we have gone a bit off track.
> 
> 
> Before I shell out thousands of pounds to create a new website and database, I simply want to test the water
> ...



I am a little confused.  I don't know much about the stock business, so maybe it is just my naievity...but, what you are proposing to do is take photos from submitters, and then submit them to companies like Getty, correct?

And then, you would take 30% of that, and the photographer would get the other 70%.  Now, it may be that I am just simple, but if I were to sell it to Getty, I would get 100% of what Getty offers rather than paying you 30% for that privelage?

So, Getty offers 30% to photos submitted, you submit them, and then you then offer 70% of what Getty offers you.  Just seems like to me 70% of 30% is less than 30%.  I guess I just don't get it.


----------



## orljustin (Jun 10, 2012)

Yeah, no thanks.  We don't need another middleman, especially one who will help themselves to 30% of the 20% that Getty will pay for the sale.  So 14 cents on the dollar.   You're not offering anything groundbreaking, so I wouldn't waste your money.


----------



## KmH (Jun 10, 2012)

Nevstock said:


> All I am looking for is simple yes or no answers, ...
> If you like the idea say Yes if not say No.


No.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 11, 2012)

lets see if I have this straight.  We give you pictures and then you contact Getty and who ever else might look at them, if Getty decides they want one of them, they pay $10.00 for the image(just using a round number) and then you take your $3.00, and then the photographer gets $7.00.  While that does make sence, how do you make enough money when you still have to deal with all the other costs running the business?  In the mean time, Getty turns around and sells the image for $1000.00, of which only Getty makes the money on, as they have already paid you the $10.00.  I'm seeing a major flaw in your business plan.  Why wouldn't I just contact Getty, and take the  40-50% from them?


----------



## orljustin (Jun 11, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> lets see if I have this straight.  We give you pictures and then you contact Getty and who ever else might look at them, if Getty decides they want one of them, they pay $10.00 for the image(just using a round number) and then you take your $3.00, and then the photographer gets $7.00.  While that does make sence, how do you make enough money when you still have to deal with all the other costs running the business?  In the mean time, Getty turns around and sells the image for $1000.00, of which only Getty makes the money on, as they have already paid you the $10.00.  I'm seeing a major flaw in your business plan.  Why wouldn't I just contact Getty, and take the  40-50% from them?



That's not how stock works.

Distributor has deal with Getty.  Image is placed on Getty.  Getty licenses to someone for $100.  Getty pays distributor 20%.  Distributor pays you %70.  So, you get $14 out of the 100 for the privilege of distributing through said distributor.  Just wait until Getty redistributes that, and you get 70% of 20% of 20%...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 11, 2012)

Buckster said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > My point was that with the existing industry paying 30% at most, including Getty, who wouldn't want 70%? Whether that structure is viable, I kind of doubt it.
> ...



The photographer that made the $30 was excited until he found out that the going rates for magazines covers are considerably higher, unfortunately this is what happens when photos end up in the low end stock agencies.  Companies like Getty or Corbis are in the busines of making money and their rates when dealing with publications are at the high end.  Time is going to be thrilled to buy a photo for $30, they know they got a deal.  Any of the magazines that I have done work with, selling my own stock has been between  $1500-2500, which is closer to the going rate for covers, inside pictures vary depending on size, location, and the magazines. Many have standard "insertion rates" for the photos.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 11, 2012)

Nevstock said:


> Thanks for all your comments but I think we have gone a bit off track.
> 
> 
> Before I shell out thousands of pounds to create a new website and database, I simply want to test the water
> ...




Yes, but going back to the Time magazine cover that Buckster mention got only $30, wouldn't that be the price that you would get and then we get 70% of that which is i think is $21 (in my head)


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 11, 2012)

Only a stock agency with no experience in negotiating fees would have agreed to $30.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 11, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Only a stock agency with no experience in negotiating fees would have agreed to $30.


That was payout from the agency to the photographer.  They negotiated it very well for themselves, so I'd say they had plenty of experience in that department.  The photographer didn't, but likely agreed to that kind of low-end payout as the image was submitted to the agency.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 11, 2012)

Buckster said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Only a stock agency with no experience in negotiating fees would have agreed to $30.
> ...



I went back and re-read a couple of articles, that's what istock paid the photographer, it hasn't said what Time paid istock for the photo, that would be interesting.  The photographer was pretty happy, says it will make a great tear sheet, unfortunately that may very well be his one and only 15 minutes of fame. Most of what I read from other people was that he got screwed by istock.  It really doesn't send a positive message.  I'm guessing that istock didn't make a big chunk off the photo either.

Sadly I think it's the way of the future for photography.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 11, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > imagemaker46 said:
> ...


Sadly, I think you're correct.  I don't envy those who worked hard to make a living as photographers, especially with the turns it's taken over the past several years.  Being an engineer has been a much more stable living for me, and photography remains a wonderful, no-pressure hobby.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jun 11, 2012)

I have a lot of friends around the world that are in the same boat that I am, struggling to just stay in the business, it really started about eight years ago for most, big agencies that I worked with were being put out of business by Getty, tough to compete against companies that play with the money Getty has access to.  More and more people using cameras to make a few bucks on the side.  I hear it all the time that these people aren't thecompetition, and if you are good enough it shouldn't matter, well it really does.  Not so easy anymore, and not as much fun.


----------



## KmH (Jun 11, 2012)

The image Time used on their cover came from a microstock agency and had a Royalty-Free (RF) use license.

Getty and Corbis are not microstock agencies, and they both also offer Rights-Managed (RM) use licenses.


----------



## Buckster (Jun 11, 2012)

KmH said:


> The image Time used on their cover came from a microstock agency and had a Royalty-Free (RF) use license.Getty and Corbis are not microstock agencies, and they both also offer Rights-Managed (RM) use licenses.


Maybe that's why Time magazine went with a microstock agency instead.


----------

