Microstock Agencies: Time to Raise the Bar
October 10th, 2008
Published in
Photography
4 Comments
Tags: crisis, microstock, opinion, quality standards, training
I have no doubt that microstock photography will survive the current financial crisis. If for no other reason, then just because of the low price of each image. As designers and ad agencies have smaller budgets, more will turn away from traditional stock or custom work, and start using microstock instead.
At the same time, more and more people will look for alternate sources of income. They will try to find ways to make money off of their hobbies and interests. For established microstock photographers, that might mean a surge in fresh, new competition. After all, if you were a regular wedding/portrait photographer, and your usual clients suddenly had no money to hire you, why not start shooting some stock? And stay-at-home parents, who suddenly find it hard to make ends meet? With microstock, they too have a way to make a little extra cash.
I’m all for adding more talent to the pool, but at the same time there is a chance that this talent will get buried in a mountain of mediocre snapshots. Especially when there is a spike in new photographers, many of whom might not have a firm grasp on this particular type of imagery. Search results that are cluttered with useless photos are frustrating to sort through, and usefulness is not the same as technically acceptable images. Just because an image passes inspection, does not mean that it’s good stock.
The easier it is to find useful, high quality photos, the more attractive the collection becomes. For that reason, I believe that now is the time for the microstock agencies to raise the bar. Not just on the images that are accepted, but more importantly the photographers that are let in.
Microstock has always been a place where amateurs and professionals could compete side by side, and it would be a shame to take that away. Instead, newbies should be offered more and better training. Make sure the new photographers understand exactly what a stock image is, how to think like a designer, copy writer or art director, how to master their cameras, how to keyword properly and so on. This could be done with a series of articles, followed up by a multiple choice test that focuses on themes that go beyond understanding noise, copyright and chromatic aberration. And of course, it’d create an even greater demand for things like portfolio consultations and similar mentoring programs.
And speaking of cameras, why not exclude the worst ones? DSLRs are so inexpensive now and qualitywise, the most problematic cameras have always been the lower end point and shoots. I say: Get rid of them! Today, you can get a cellphone with a 5 megapixel camera in it, but resolution does not guarantee good image quality.
I realize that this might be percieved as a risky move, but I honestly believe that the agency with the highest average quality of images, will also attract the highest quality buyers. It is possible to raise the bar without raising the price, and in the long run, it would be to everyone’s advantage.
Photo credit: elkor
Related Posts
October 10th, 2008at 3:20 pm(#)
I would go the opposite way and encourage agencies to accept a wider range of quality. Search technology can easily push the best images to the top where the buyers are looking. Most agencies already do this with search algorithms incorporating metrics of both the image’s performance and that of the contributor.
This enables agencies to fulfill long-tail demand. All those obscure subjects and corners of the world that are not the superstar niches, but make the occasional sale. Amazon.com is super-successful because it can fulfill obscure orders from a massive back catalog. The corner bookstore stocks only the best sellers by necessity. Just like now when you need an obscure or older book you’ll instinctively go to Amazon.com where you know you’ll find it, image buyers will head to agencies with the largest portfolios (and to an extent the greatest variety) to find those non-superstar images.
Or said another way, take it all and let the algorithms sort it out.
-Lee
October 10th, 2008at 3:38 pm(#)
Oh, I certainly am no opponent to the weird, obscure type of imagery. There is a definite market for it, even if these images will never make the list of most sold. When I talk about raising the bar, I am referring to snapshots and photos that are technically borderline. Usefulness comes in many shapes and sizes, but there are many subjects that are photographed over and over by countless contributors (sunsets, anyone?), where it would be a benefit to everyone if the standards were higher.
And I still believe we should cut away the crappy point and shoots.
As for search algorithms, they are a pet peeve of mine. I love me some iStockphoto, but the so-called “Best Match” is horrible and should be removed completely. It causes more trouble than it does good – from people who try to abuse it, useless fingerpointing and a whole shitload of crap that lies outside the realm of this post. I detest funky, “smart” search results like that. Give me the option to sort by age, downloads, ratings and all that stuff, but don’t pretend that a secret set of criteria (which of course is just a mix of the aforementioned ones) can serve me the best matches to my request. Ugh.
October 10th, 2008at 4:03 pm(#)
On the sunsets and bugs-on-flowers, I’m totally with you. More so when I consider that you have to deal with it first hand as an inspector! (glad it’s you and not me) ;)
The ‘best match’ type algorithms have a critical place in agencies with large portfolios. At agencies other than iStock they help control keyword spam (images with low click-through rates for a keyword appear lower in the results) and can be heavily weighted towards the images that have actually been purchased as a result of appearing in the search results for the same keyword. It’s incredible how ’smart’ this technology can be. iStock’s controlled vocabulary means they have one less thing to gain, so in that context I can totally see your point.
Also, one of the things I love about microstock is that it places the emphasis on the photo rather than the photographer (as the traditional market does). If a new photographer creates an awesome stock photo (above his/her usual standard) it’s great that they can get encouragement and revenue from seeing that photo sell. Higher entry requirements for the individual photographer make it more difficult for learning photographers to get this feedback directly from the market.
And maybe the ‘best match’ algorithm can can be adjusted to lower the search result positions for all the photos of contributors who submit photos of sunsets!! ;)
November 13th, 2008at 11:22 am(#)
We’ve been hearing for months about this supposed raising of the standards, but I haven’t seen it in action yet. I’m talking about my side of iStock, vector illustration, but there are parallels to photography; just because the file is technically sound, doesn’t make it good. And there is a difference between funky, primitive drawing and bad drawing. I don’t think *that* can be taught on a microstock site.