I was pleasantly surprised today to find a couple of images sold through my stock agency Alamy. Considering they have nearly 10 million images online, it seems like a needle in a haystack situation. They give you a good deal of information regarding the sale, all except who it was to and where it may appear. It is part of their policy that tries to balance the privacy of their clients with the wants of a photographer knowing where something will be published.
The anonymous buyer really drives home a simple business reality. No matter how attached you may be to a certain image, no matter how much or how little effort may have gone into it – stock photography is simply an object for sale. It is really not much different than a box of cereal. There is a buyer, a seller, and a commodity. The origin of the product is really irrelevant as is its final destination. An perhaps that is a concept that some artists find hard to grasp or accept. It really is a simple question at hand – does the product fit the client’s needs for the price they are willing to pay for it?
I would imagine there is quite a bit of craft, and even art, that goes into a box of cereal. Box design, packaging, taste, texture, bowl appeal and probably some industry lingo for what you call the individual pieces. Terms not unlike a lot of things that we get hung up on as photographers. But I do wonder if they discuss Raisin Bran versus Fruit Loops much? 😉 Some types are based upon the pure sugar appeal, while others have some good fiber to them. Some companies go for selling as much as they can in bulk as cheap as possible, others try to be more discriminating and sell on quality.
And certainly, the more brands and variety you are able to put on the shelf, the bigger reach you are going to have to the various markets. When it is applied to photographs, it can really change how you think about an image. The pure aesthetic of an image is secondary to it filling a particular need.
Nevertheless, I am sure there is a lot of pride, talent, and perhaps even passion behind a box of cereal. Do we as consumers think about any of that when we are walking the isles of the grocery store? Not likely. How about the equipment used to manufacture it or all the time spent coming up with a new variety? Not a chance.
The two images in this post are the ones that sold recently. Naturally I have a curiosity where they may end up, why someone picked this one over that one. How many people might see it and in what context? I may never know.
Photography has the potential to be as significant as changing world politics to as simple as filling space in a school textbook to being a snapshot of an event in our lives. That really is an incredible spectrum to think about. Certainly cereal can’t hold a candle to that, no matter who’s eating it.
Thank you for the comments Petra. I have wondered the same thing, even control over the license is a bit of a mystery to me. I doubt a big place like Alamy (among others) has the resources to police this type of stuff.
I forgot to say something – your opossum photo is soooo adorable – it made me laugh out loud when I saw it. And somehow this photo was in the back of my mind when I photographed my mouseportraits but never believing there would be anything nice coming out…
now I have it (mouse) as a screensaver and it makes me smile each time I am going to my computer – in whatever mood I am…
“Color is huge to women. Bad color and you can forget it” – this sounds as if women do not look for content! A rather narrow statement for an artist…
Judith’s remarks sound quite valid for me and I see the big pill to be swallowed. But I also see an opportunity here (while making the choice for stock photography) to learn what art is sometimes only about: business
With any photograph you still have the chance for decision – if you don’t want it to disappear into anonymity and being simply “used” you can keep it for a place that is appreciative.
It is the same with paintings – you would not sell a work that contains all your heartblood – would you?
Still I am a bit irritated about the fact that the buyer is not obliged to credit the photographer – how on earth do you have control over your copyright then?
Judith – that is a good way to put it – feeling ‘alienated.’ We can put so much of our soul into certain images and it can be difficult to watch it turn into a generic commodity. I am learning to accept this particular aspect of it since I want to participate in the stock photography industry. It is just a big pill to swallow. 😉
Congratulations, Mark! Two fine photographs, and I really love that opposum. 🙂 I didn’t know they burrowed in trees!
Your remarks are interesting with respect to the commodification of art, and I find it interesting that Alamy doesn’t disclose the buyer’s identity or exactly where the photo will appear, and that apparently the buyer is not required to credit the photographer. I think doing those two things might alleviate that feeling you identified of being alienated from your work in some fundamental way.
Interesting points. Used to when I went to design shows and carried art to sell to designers rarely did they look at art for substance, only color.
Color is huge to women. Bad color and you can forget it.
Very nice images as well. The opossum would go well in a children’s book.
Mark: It wasn’t your post that I thought perhaps had a touch of defeat, it was the sentence “stock photography is simply an object for sale.” I was thinking you were saying that once you leave your stock photography with an agency, there isn’t much else you can do. You’ve taken your baby to the orphanage, now please go away.
My point was: Don’t stop there. Get that baby into graduate school. Keep looking for other avenues, money-making or not, as suits your style. Be aggressive. Be assertive. Be active. And obviously, this is what you are doing and doing well. I am sorry I hadn’t realized earlier just how much you are doing, or how active you are.
My apologies to your possum. I should have known better. The pointy pink nose. Of course.
I had no idea they didn’t tell you where the images went, I now nothing of the stock side of photography, they are really nice images though.
Hey Bill, thanks for stopping by to comment. I agree with your comments about passive marketing, which is why stock isn’t the only area where I promote my work. It is a combination effort, between direct photo editor submissions, print sales, local gallery work, search engine optimization, and yes, a little bit of stock in there also. I am not sure why my post seemed to have a ‘touch of defeat’ – or perhaps I just don’t understand that comment.
(p.s. it is an opposum, not mouse. 😉 )
Your statement that “stock photography is simply an object for sale” strikes me as cynical, perhaps with a touch of defeat. Yes, listing with a stock photo agency probably qualifies as passive marketing where your work is treated like the picked-over clothes on a sale rack at a department store. But your total marketing effort, if you choose to have one, doesn’t have to be that passive.
Sales depend on your approach to marketing. I might add that some of us have more stomach for and better skills at marketing than others. Marketing is very much a numbers thing. Marketing success is about the number of people you reach and the likelihood of their buying. With a stock agency, you reach a lot of people and it costs you little. Marketing can also be about reaching people one on one, and it may cost you more in terms of time and effort. For example, after selling your mouse photo (and congratulations, by the way), perhaps you could find ways to show it to people who might be likely to buy mouse photos. Use it to try to get in to see people to show them your portfolio.
And of course, one might ask if sales are the only thing? I would say not. There can be plenty of rewards in donating your work to a non-profit cause.
You mention that cereal can’t hold a candle to photography, but your photographs won’t change a thing if your hide your light under the proverbial bushel.
Nice Mark, well deserved of course. But I feel the same way you do. It is always amazing to have one’s work used when the choices are so vast. I like that it was done through a company that values images and garners resonable fees.
I share your feelings on this subject! Wonderful blog Mark!
Congratulations on the sale, Mark. Photography is everywhere, just look on any cereal box, magazine, billboard, etc. We see thousands upon thousands of pictures per day.
I’d bet that theses photos photos are destined for a biology book or some type of educational , or children’s book dealing with animals, something like National Geographic Kids.