 In my last article I promised to write this one about the impact of Microstock (Micro) on Royalty Free (RF). In the interim, I have been doing some serious research, study, and thinking about the affect of Micro on RF. I fought with myself over the conclusion I came to in this article in an attempt to trash it, but I have been unable to do it because I think it is correct. History has a way of repeating itself.
In 1992 RF, then called “Clip Art” by its detractors, first appeared as low-resolution images on CD-Rom disks. At the time, in spite RF’s low cost per image the low-rez files and the second-best aesthetic quality of the images kept RF from cutting into Rights Managed (RM) stock sales. The producers of RF promised that RF would open new markets among those who could not afford to use RM and in doing so would provide new sources of revenues to the contributing photographers. In fact, that did happen. RF quickly became a successful stock line to carry even with the high production and distribution costs of taking CD-Rom disks to the marketplace. The success of RF made it attractive to companies who produced digital programming and other disk-based products. More and larger companies entered the field. By 1995 there were dozens of companies marketing RF. That is when the paradigm shift began to take place, and when RF began eating into RM sales and revenues.
The paradigm shift ended with today’s expansive RF marketplace. The catalyst to the process that produced the RF expansion was competition between the producers. RF was the stepchild of stock photography, never as good as RM, the natural child. But competition for market share motivated producers to fill their disks (and then their online offerings) with higher-resolution photographs of first-rate quality. Gradually, it became difficult to see any difference between RF & RM photography, except the licensing fees and the file size of the images. Initially, RF could be used for up to ¼ page reproductions. Today, it can be used double truck. If the buyer can get by with non-exclusivity and possible competitive users of the same image, RF will meet the needs for publishing as much as 90% of all images published, often at less than half the price of RM. No wonder RF has gotten such a foothold. It is a great deal for the buyer.
Researching the Micro business, I found that in its infancy it has many of the same characteristics that RF had when it began. It promises to open new markets, much of the work is second-rate, and its file sizes, depending upon the company, limit its usability. However, many Micro agencies now offer file sizes that are suitable for double truck spreads. Add to that the fact that more and more good photographers are being drawn to the Micro model, and the result is that there will be more and more first-rate images coming online as Micro. As that volume of first-rate images increases, Micro will eat into the sales of RF more and more because the buyer is not going to pay more than s/he has to, to get what s/he needs.
When the eating is done, in my opinion, RF will be crippled if not dead. There will be no reason to buy RF because Mirco is and will be nothing more than the less-expensive version of RF, the same thing but cheaper. So who is going to buy RF when that happens? Human nature being what it is, no one I expect.
What will happen to RM? I think it will survive by adapting and selling its strengths. More will be written about that next time.
(c) 2006 Richard Weisgrau [contact] [bio] |
All About Business 
