On Monday I strongly proclaimed that “stock is dead.” I was trying to force home the point that considering making a living solely though licensing stock images is about as practical as considering trying to get rich selling ice to Eskimos. And I stand by my strong-minded opinion. But, don’t worry. I’m actually not all doom and gloom.
I wrote what I wrote because I feel that it is critical that forward-thinking photographers utterly abandon any kind of perverse line of thinking that will lead them to plan their financial success around stock, even in part. As I keep saying, stock is dead and over — as a way for photographers to make significant money.
Like I said, I’m not all doom and gloom, and so I want to share two thoughts about how to proceed with stock even in the face that “stock is dead.” The first is a dose of important historical perspective. The second is actually a way to consider approaching stock photography in more practical manner, even if I insist it’s dead.
• The first thing to consider is that—as much as a few lucky photographers cashed in big on stock—the phenomenon of making a living from stock was really only a very brief one. A blip. A photographic industry anomaly, if you will.
The heydays of stock were really only from the early-‘80s to the mid-‘90s. You could argue a little longer on either side, but really not much, and really not for many.
The simple fact is that making a hefty living through stock was more of an illusion than anything reliable—kind of like those few who luck out in the stock market. Sure there are hundreds of stories of photographers who made good money for a decade or two, but many thousands more failed at the pursuit, and that’s the truth.
The point is that, in the overall history of photography as a profession, the death of stock is not really that important. There are other, more solid ways to make a living from the craft. It’s not like we’ve seen the loss of portrait photography. Now THAT would be major. Portrait photographers have been with us since the very, very beginning and I bet they’ll be with us to the end.
So keep it in perspective, and don’t sweat the death of stock.
• The second thought I will share about the “death of stock” is that, in a way, this clear death relates to an easier, less pressured way to participate in stock, and possibly make some nice “free” money.
I point to the fact photographers can now more easily, cheaply and quickly submit keyword rich images to any number of photo agencies or image licensing portals. It can be done with almost automatic ease, as part of workflows centered around non-stock image making. Herein lies the chance to “win” income from these efforts.
The trick is that the “effort” should not really take any effort—in terms of time or money—and that the income should be considered utterly negligible, as in nothing. With a zero in the “Stock” line of your income projections, you can focus better on the more solid ways to earn money. Stock should be considered like gravy in one’s already healthy business model—or maybe an analogy to winning the lottery would be more apt.
As you can see, this “strategy” is more of an attitude than anything else. If one understands that “stock is dead” and accepts that this is no great loss, then any efforts in stock will be neutral (no significant effort, no earnings) to awesome (no significant effort, lots of “free” money).
Does this make sense?
Admittedly, in some ways I’m being a little flip when I throw out so nonchalantly that “stock is dead.” But I really think that, from a practical, financial planning point of view, it really is. And as I said on Monday, understanding this reality can help forward-thinking photographers best approach business strategies.
You might win the stock lottery, but you shouldn’t plan on it.
Once you rule out the lottery, you might consider looking for a little stock gravy. And why not? The truth is, thanks to the incredibly power of digital—both to more cheaply create and distribute stock—photographers can indeed make money from stock. But it will never be guaranteed. And so you should assume you will not, and focus the great bulk of you business-building efforts elsewhere.