I’m assuming that most readers of this blog are familiar with the basics of how stock agencies work. You take photos, you send them to the agency, they sell them, and you split the sales proceeds. That’s the basic model. That said, that said, the stock photography world is a universe unto itself. Various articles in this series will deal with some of the bigger differences you should be aware of, as well as more detailed thoughts on how to pick and work with any given agency.

For now, let’s say you’ve decided to sell through a stock agency…how do you decide which one to sell through? I’d say the answer depends on where you are in your photographic journey.

Part One: If you are just starting out

If you are completely new to stock photography and / or if you do not have at least 500+ high quality images in a singe niche area, then I would recommend that you take two steps.

First, choose your niche and start shooting to develop a deeper library in a particular issue area. Second, in the meantime, get your feet wet in the world of stock photograph, and possibly sell some images, by applying to Alamy or a similarly flexible agency.

Alamy is the largest online stock photography agency, with nearly 14 million images at time of writing. They require that photos meet certain minimum standards of size, resolution, and quality, but otherwise, their view is that if you have images, you should have a place to market them. Thus, they more open to new photographers than other agencies.

Working with Alamy will get you accustomed to the laborious process of preparing your digital files for submission. It will also give you a outlet for possible sales (don’t expect a lot). Finally, it will give you some credibility. When you apply to other agencies later, you can tell them you have 1000 photos on file with Alamy. Also, Alamy will give you your own searchable homepage.

Part Two: If you have experience and/or a larger portfolio of images

If you have a large portfolio of high quality images and you know enough about stock photography to prepare and submit images, then you have more choices. The big question is whether to try to get into a larger, generalist agency or a smaller, specialist agency.

For the most part, unless you are a recognized name in the industry, you’ll do better with smaller, more specialized agencies. Most important, you’ll be a bigger fish in a smaller pond. The agency will be more interested in your work because it matches the agency’s niche field. Because it’s smaller, you have a better chance of developing a strong relationship with the editors.

Because you’ll have a closer relationship and because your photos match the agencies niche area, they will be more likely to promote your photos in catalogs, online, and with buyers. You will do much, much better with an agency if the agency promotes your images and puts them in high profile locations.

Beyond these benefits, there’s also the fact that smaller agencies are less competitive and easier to get into. If you are just starting out, that’s probably important. Indeed, the biggest and most competitive agencies—Getty, Corbis, Jupiter and the like—can be very difficult to get into unless you are already an established photographer.

At some level this decision is made for you. If you are the kind of photographer who has a chance for getting into Getty or Corbis, then you already know it, and you probably don’t need to be reading this. If not, you’ll probably be looking at smaller agencies.

So the remaining question is: which small agency do you choose?  Simple. Remember this refrain: match content, style, and quality. You should find an agency that matches your content, style, and quality. The same advice applies if you are sending magazine submissions: send your photos to magazines whose images have the same content, style, and quality as yours.

If you follow that simple advice when sending submissions—whether to magazines or stock agencies—you have won have the battle.

If you find more than one agency that matches your work in content, style, and quality, then you can look at other criteria. Other things equal, you should choose the agency that:

a) has the more established reputation
b) pays the highest percentage to the photographer
b) matches your content, style, and quality the best
c) will do the most to promote your images
d) has the smallest number of photographers
d) offers the most attractive terms regarding exclusivity (ie, gives you the most leeway to continue to market your images yourself)
e) offers the most attractive terms for removing your images (ie, doesn’t require you leave your images on file for two years).

So ideally, you’d find an agency that sells just the kind of photos you take, has a great reputation, works with few photographers, pays a high percentage of sales, lets you market images yourself, and lets you pull your image when you decide to. If you find that agency, you’ve got a great match.

Indeed, once you find that agency, you’ll probably continue to work with them for the rest of your photographic career, even if you establish relationships with other agencies for other types of photos.

Tweet

at Zooomr we are in the process of building what will soon be the world’s largest stock photography agency. We think we can pay photographers out 90% and still operate our business. We also are going to let photographers set their price on their images between $5 and $1,000 for royalty free images.

That looks like a great deal, and in fact has made me search in vain for my Zooomr login details

One question I have, that will obviously become crystal clear, is if they will find paying customers …

Tags: micro, stock, photography, news, zooomr, thomas hawk

Tweet

Call me a naysayer, but this doesn’t seem like a way to make money. I’ve always made money by differentiating myself. Stock is the antithesis of differentiation. Say “NO!” all you want to royalty-free websites like istockphoto.com and the royalty-free discs of several years ago, but so long as enough photographers say YES! to submitting to these folks that will set the market price. This is exactly why I’m too chicken to mess with stock: enough others submit their work for nothing, so no one is going to pay me any more.

When I worked for a marketing agency there were quite a few occasions where stock photography was used but that tended towards those projects where the budget was low, deadlines were tight and the picture requirement was very generic. Other than the top stock libraries like Getty that have some real top photographers on their books, I think the stock photography that Ken is so against is the domain of the “$10 template” website hack, they are not his market anyway.

It is tempting to think I could make a passive income from stock photos but I can’t see me getting up the enthusiasm to take photographs JUST to submit to a library. If someone was to come along and ask to purchase rights to use a picture that would be a completely different proposition.

Having said that, there is a lot of people making money and having fun. Don’t knock it till you have tried it, I just might give it a go.

Technorati Tags: stock, photography, news

Tweet

Will Flickr Enter The Commercial Stock Photography Business?

Flickr/Yahoo recently announced in the category Product/General Management two new interesting vacancies for a Product Manager A and a Product Manager B, which raises the question if Flickr will enter the commercial stock photo market in the not too distant future, with selected and rights cleared images of its huge image library.

I hadn’t thought about things like model releases, and all that legal stuff, but I am sure if companies are making a profit selling stock photography with far less technical savvy, legal support or investment as Flickr then the boys from Flickr/Yahoo! could crack it.

Technorati Tags: flickr, stock, photography, news

Tweet