SO CALLED PHOTO STOCK AGENCIES

[blazefan]

Ok lets put it out there and see what experiences you have had or heard of with so called photo stock agencies - from general stock through to Media / Sports / medical etc.


Do you beleave that you should have to pay to submit your photo's to a stock Agencies.

And with the over saturation of these ever growing and new agencies that are sprouting up, is it worth the effort.

Blaze fan

[Tim N]

I have thought about submitting to a couple of stock sites and have been thru the "selection" process with a couple and have been accepted, but after reading all the terms + conditions I decided it was not worth trying to sell my stuff that way as I basically have no right left to print my own stuff or do what I want with it.

I did start to look into a local sport stock site but since I didnt have the right gear I couldnt get a look in.

It depends on how the agency makes it money as any business has to. If they take a commission from sales then they shouldnt charge a submission fee but if they dont take commission then a fee is fine. Also I guess it stops any joe blow who has a camera flooding the site with rubbish if they charge a submission fee, but have a low commission on sales.  If that makes any sense

Thats what I reckon anyway

[Analog6]

I am with OzImages where you pay a basic fee per year and everything after that is yours.  Clients contact you and you do the printing/transmission of digital images or whatever.  I have not been paid up long and am still building up my image stock.  If you sold an image for $1000 (dream on!) that is yours, they do not take any commission.

[Ross and Cher]

The idea of making a buck or two out of a hobby that is so enjoyable is very appealing. However, I'm a "bean counter" by trade, so am realistic enough to think that any sort of agency is there to make money, whether it be via commission or up front fees!

Would I pay an up-front fee - IF i thought there was a reasonable enough chance of getting my money back plus some compensation for my efforts. Would I continue paying, ONLY if I was getting my money back plus enough to cover my efforts.

The problem appears to be that the market is so flooded, the price of stock is then so low, you have to have a huge stock library and be continually growing it to just get a bit ahead - so then comes the question - is it worth the effort or are we just ruining a perfectly good hobby?? and that, like just about all aspects of photography, is a personal opinion/choice/judgement!  

[blazefan]

It surprises me when these small boutique so called stock agencies charge money to join.....The big ones, Getty Images (USA), AAp Image (AUS), AP (USA), SMP Images (AUS), Reuters (CAN), Corbis (EU) dont charge a cent for you to be deemed a contributer. Having worked for and in close relationship with these big companies i know this for a fact.

The other problem is now that flicker and several other happy snapper contributing stock agencies have been bought out by the big boys, they now sell their images for a low as .99 cents.....does this leave any hope for the happy snapper / amatuer photographer sending pics to be considered for sale through stock companies. ?

I personally believe that you shouldnt have to pay for contributing to stock agencies...... All of the big major agencies have their clients on a subscription base and do in fact make money out of every sale no matter what - i know our newspaper network has subscriptions with all the above listed agencies. So why should you have to pay them to increase their business with your pics...??

The other big question looms - what do these agencies that you pay to join actually do to :-
1. Promote and market your pics to clients.
2. Where do they actually find their clients from, considering most major publications / newspapers / electronic media org's go through the big agencies listed above , especially considering how easy it for them to access the content they require, and that they know they are going to only have top shelf quality images to choose from.
3. and with so many people submitting pics , what do they do to help you grow your pics for which clients might actually seek to obtain for use.

[Carmyllie]

Call me naiive ( many would ) but my understanding of the 'bigger picture' here is that we are all just aiding , abetting and promoting these so called Stock Agencies by partaking in their stocks. I am very interested to hear the points of view in this thread and pose the question to us all.
What do we want to get out of our Art?
Personally speaking, I shan't be marketting my works in this manner, ever. There has to be a gazillion and one other ways to make a 'buck' without hanging out for the elusive customer, on the odd occasion. Sheer talent, word of mouth and personalised recognition, surely must be the more favoured outcome IF we choose to sell.
I would loathe to lose the passion for my craft at the expense of what appears to be a huge monopoly of worldly talent and artistic endeavour.

Thank you Blaze Fan for sparking the seeds of thought and for the logical, intelligent and more than informative contributions added to your, by members. Living and Learning in the finest form.

[Ross and Cher]

BF – no expert in stock images as haven't sold any, so may be way off track, and I can certainly see why a “one stop shop” would appeal to the networks, but I thought that the agencies you mention are the domain of the pro’s, which is why you guys get swamped with pics from hopefuls wanting to be “published” so they can crack into these networks.

Certainly the “stock” agencies I have looked at (and I haven’t researched extensively) are more than happy to charge a whacking great commission on the sale of an image. The question of whether you are better off with a commission on sale or an upfront fee is a bit like “how long is a piece of string”? There is no right or wrong answer, it is based on an individuals assessment at a given point in time with the facts they have at hand.

From a strictly “bean counter’s” point of view, the boutique agencies – either upfront fee or commission based, must be doing something otherwise the “punters” would stop playing if they weren’t getting a return for effort or dollars outlayed! Yes churn may carry them for a while, but as some have been going for years, they must be doing something right.

Of more concern is the market being flooded with discount agencies, who sell the stock for next to nothing and for that we (amateurs with cameras and a hope of making a buck out of a hobby) only have ourselves to blame as we have made it a buyers market.

And Jenn – as much as I would like to believe in word of mouth etc etc, at the end of the day, I don’t think I will be giving up my day job any time soon! 

[admin]

If you are going to get involved in stock, I think that it pays to specialise in just a few styles / categories and genres Corbis and iStock  photo (part of Getty images) have some vey useful information. There are a few photographers even making money out of the micro-payment model, by learning where the demand is (certainly not flowers and animals), then creating a style.
iStock also sends out a brief weekly newsletter that shows a selection of current 'what's hot' images you can subscribe at newsletter@istockphoto.com . Alamy also publishes a shoot list of what is required by clients.

[gringer]

There are many agencies which  give different facilities but here I just found a great offer in a newsletter. You can get 20 free Photo cards & 20 free photo prints via visit this link www.zerotofive.com.au/photocards.htm the offer ends soon but my friend registered and if you order prints before the end of the month you keep the credits for the cards. Get them for when you need them.

[aprillove20]

I agree with balazefan...promote and market your pics to clients.