There, I said it. Stock photography is dead. Which is to say, from the photographer’s perspective, making and licensing stock imagery is no longer a viable way to earn extra income, let alone make a living purely through stock sales.
This opinion is not one based on deep research, and it can easily be refuted by any number of photographers who are still making big bucks from both old and new stock. But I think this “stock is dead” perspective is critically important for photographers to embrace so that they do not waste precious resources trying to squeeze money out of a dead industry.
Don’t get me wrong. Stock isn’t going away — especially not from the user’s point of view. Stock images are being used more than every before—by far—and they will continue to be, and they will continue (damnit!) to drive down the value of assignment photography. But while more stock images are being licensed every day, few photographers are receiving more than a few dollars (or pennies) for usage.
It’s a digital world in which “everyone” can make a “decent image” suitable for most stock needs. This is what is now referred to as “image saturation”. And this image saturation combined with the fact that—for all the fighting on behalf stock photographers that has been done by photography associations—rights managed licensing has basically lost out to various forms of royalty free licensing, i.e., “giving your work away for free.”
This is why stock photography is dead.
I share this “stock is dead” perspective after recently talking to a number of photographers who used to make enough money from stock to support numerous, stock-centric photographic trips each year. Those days are over, they all told me. They are scrambling to figure out a new ways to survive.
I share this perspective after just receiving Jim Pickerell’s 2008 annual survey about stock photography. Stock expert Pickerell has not tallied his results, but I cannot imagine they will be encouraging to stock photographers, and I bet they will back my assessment.
I share this perspective after receiving my daily “PhotoDaily” email from Rohn Engh, who made a name for himself by publishing the once valuable, “Sell & Re-Sell Your Photos.” This book may still entice hobbyists—and it may help them—but it doesn’t speak to professionals in the current landscape.
I share this perspective after just receiving an email from Stock Artists Alliance (SAA) announcing their search for a new executive director to head up “the only trade association dedicated to the interest of professional stock photographers.” I wish SAA luck, but such an association seems to be, more than not, fighting a lost battle.
I know Pickerell, Engh and Betsy Reid, the soon-to-step-down head of SAA. These are great people who have done great work on behalf of stock photographers. I’ve also been a board member of the American Society of Picture Professionals (ASPP), and through that venue I met lots of other good people doing good work on behalf of stock photographers.
I appreciate the fact that these people and entities (and many others) will continue to fight for the ability for photographers to earn money through stock sales. And I know that many photographers still get some nice extra income from stock sales. But I don’t think these two points can be overlooked:
1. Stock photography is dead in the sense of no photographer can plan on the ability to earn sufficient, consistent, guaranteed income from stock sales.
2. Whatever the state of stock industry is today, it’s only going to get worse for photographers, with greater image saturation and worse economic models for image-makers.
Is there anyone who can challenge these two points?