Index Stock Imagery, Inc.: Faster, Cheaper, Better?

« INDEX STOCK IMAGERY LAUNCHES NEW CORPORATE BLOG | Main | WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HUMAN »

February 27, 2006

Faster, Cheaper, Better?

By Pat Hunt

Subscription, royalty free (RF), micro sites, Googling for images and even “free” - it’s enough to make your head spin. Stock photography business models change, mature, and grow these days faster than anyone can keep up. It makes the late ‘90s concern for royalty free CDs seem like ancient history.

The latest dramatic iteration has been the micro payment sites, charging as low as $1 to $3 to license a stock image. This quickly followed the popularity of the subscription sites, where clients can pay one set fee for a period of months to access thousands of RF image downloads. Photographers can earn 20 cents per download in these systems. Image licensing clients from advertising agencies to editorial textbook companies are embracing these windfalls, to access more volume, fight downward pressure on budgets, and just plain enjoy getting any images at all for low cost to “no” cost projects.

A current survey of varied image users garnered some interesting response to what Internet image sites are preferred by clients, and what purchasing budgets are forming for the coming year. When the participants were asked if they were actually licensing fewer images this year because they are easily accessing volume imagery on subscription sites, the overwhelming response was - “NO.” According to Smith-Winchester Advertising, “Not at all. Sites like Getty or Index Stock have made it economical to subscribe to six month or one year plans. If I have a large project where I know I will be ordering a lot of photos, and those photos are not extremely specific, I’ll go to one of the subscription plans to save money. If it’s a one-off, then I’ll go where I can get the best looking image.”

Scholastic claims they only turn to subscription sites when budgets are low or if multiple images will be used on one page. Barnes & Noble is not able to find appropriate images for their editorial book covers and interiors in subscription sites, and a textbook freelancer claims that most of the companies she works for don’t use subscription models. Weekly Reader, on the other hand, says they are licensing 10% to 15% fewer images because of subscription sites, and Avocet Communications says they’re licensing fewer images because of high pricing: “Rights Managed photos tend to be so expensive that we could easily jump on a plane and fly across the country to take the photo ourselves for a cheaper price.”

It would seem over the last year that Getty has held firm on pricing, and the RF prices are creeping up at every company. What does this do for the “free” image exchange sites? This specific group of customers claimed about two-to-one that “free” is not their cup of tea. As one client said, “If I find a good image fast, it’ll never be cheap.” On the other hand, Christina Micek, our freelance researcher, who has written a popular article on Google Image Search (http://www.mactribe.com/articlenews.asp?ArticleId=31 ) says, “Since Google Image Search has become more popular, some sources are allowing free use of images in exchange for what I refer to as ‘bragging rights’. This is still rare, and too time consuming. More often than not, the content providers who give imagery away freely are mostly scientists who have had their research and all data acquisitions paid for by Universities and NIH grants.” Jones and Bartlett Publishers at times actively seeks public domain or free imagery, “but this is because their needs are sometimes not met by stock agencies and the pricing that may be given is well above what is requested by other stock agencies or photographers.”

Almost everyone claims to be the victim of “downward pressure” within the companies to cut costs. One ad agency claims their clients want to bring costs down but the cost of stock imagery is going up. In-house photography using digital equipment is sometimes the answer. The publishing companies express relief that they are able to negotiate special agreements with stock agents and they are also producing more photo shoots. Also the pressure to reduce costs centers on certain editorial projects or titles such as the launch of new authors.

So, what happens in the next twelve months? Will everybody be spending more or less? The response was virtually one-to-one either spending more or the same amount. Few seem to be scaling back. Some ad agencies expect to spend 10% to 15% more. Cutbacks may come in other ways, as Scholastic says they may cut back on the number of images used in a layout - from 2 to 1 per page, or 6 to 4 per spread. Also some are finding it is cheaper to use their own photographer.

Fodor’s travel books are using more images on both covers and interiors, and Wiley Publishing is offering a new series of books that increases need by 10% to 20%. Barnes and Noble also expects to spend more because of volume production increases and not because of pricing demands. As Jones and Bartlett Publishing puts it, “We are spending less on photography per project, but due to the consistent increase in the amount of textbooks we are publishing each year, we are technically spending more overall.”

So, how will low-priced image collections on the market affect their businesses in the future? “Not much,” is an average response, as many companies have leaned toward the RF model for years anyway, and many companies still demand quality, or have to pay to get the unique image they need. As the average textbook company claims, “Until ethnicity requirements are answered, more reality shots provided (less obviously staged), and regions are generic enough, I will turn to imagery outside these collections.” These companies lament that “many of the collections contain images better suited for commercial/advertising uses.” Another adds, “The lower priced image collections allow us to save money on ‘fill’ images and pay more for the difficult to locate images.” Photographers are encouraged to “focus on hard to find imagery instead of imagery that is easy to shoot and plentiful.”

What are some of these image needs that clients struggle to find? The responses vary:

-High quality lifestyle for pharmaceutical use.
-Portraits of sweet looking kids to classroom activity shots, world events, travel and history.
-Fresh, realistic kids and teens in everyday situations, news, health, career development and science.
-Colorful and clear travel images.
-Health, science, public safety, fire, nursing, criminal justice, and computer science.
-Photos from Spanish, French, Italian and German speaking countries.

Poignant survey quotes:

- “For textbook companies, the image must illustrate the point of the text, and that takes first priority. Second priority is quality, but we will not throw out quality unless content is impossible to find.”
- “Calendars require very high quality scans of slides or very good captures. Having said that, I’ve been able to successfully take small digital captures (4”x6” @ 300dpi) and interpolate upwards to 14”x12” with no visible sign of image degradation.. This depends on a quality chip to begin with, and a file that hasn’t been JPEG’d to death.”

So, where are all of these images coming from? Each company listed their low cost and high cost favorites, and the list reads like a PACA meeting. For cost shopping, some searches are focused on Index Open, iStockphoto, Rubber Ball, Photo Spin, Photos.com and Clipart.com. Then the list graduates to the familiar Getty and Corbis, along with frequently named Masterfile, Index Stock, Alamy, Jupiter Images, Superstock, and age fotostock.

Of note also on the list were Picture Quest, AP, eStock, Creatas, Agpix, IBID, National Geographic, Boeing, Veer, Photo Researchers, Bridgeman Archive, Visuals Unlimited, Photo Edit, and Image Works. It should be noted that some of these brands are part of large companies already named.

Jones and Bartlett put it best, “We prefer to work with agencies that not only have a large collection, but pride themselves on excellent customer service, price negotiation and quick/efficient turnaround time.”

Thanks to the following for their generous time and participation –

Torre Lazur – www.mccann.com
Smith-Winchester Advertising – www.smith-winchester.com
McKinney & Silver – www.mckinney-silver.com
Avocet Communications – www.avocetcommunications.com
Scholastic Publishing – www.scholastic.com
Weekly Reader Publishing – www.weeklyreader.com
Simon & Schuster – www.simonandschuster.com
Fodor’s Travel Books – www.fodors.com
John Wiley Publishing – www.wiley.com
Bill Smith Studio – www.billstudio.com
Christina Micek Research – photodemon@hotmail.com
Barnes & Noble Publishing – www.bn.com
Jones and Bartlett Publishers – www.jbpub.com
Heinle Thomson Learning – www.thomson.com