Is Photography Becoming a Commodity?

Many say it already is. There have been many signs for quite some time indicating ‘Commodification’ is exactly what is happening.

Is the art behind a photograph of any value, to anyone? Is our product viewed no differently than pork bellies, petrol, or Granny Smith apples?

A commodity is a product that has the same characteristics no matter who produces it.

How can photography be a commodity? No matter how many times Delicate Arch is photographed in mid afternoon on a cloudless day, each photographer’s image is different. No lightning bolt across the desert or mountain biker flying off a jump is ever the same.

What makes photography a commodity is the marketing, pricing structure, and perception of value.

Do the buyers have a perception of real value?

Of course they do and they know a bargain when they see it. That is why they flock to these low cost RF models.

They love this business model and the approach to this low cost stock photography. No bartering on price, no reuse fees when the license expires, and they can use the image for every campaign they will ever produce, forever and ever.

Are you and your work vital to the buying community? Probably not! For every one of you and me peddling our images of National Parks, there are a 1000 more willing to take whatever they can get. This adds to the low cost buyers market.

Image quality? Certainly image quality in the low end models is as good, maybe better, than Rights Managed imagery of a decade ago. But is quality really the primary concern versus price? It is clear that there is a lot of crap in stock photography and some aspects of the buying public has accepted a ‘good enough is good enough’ mindset.

I have seen this in my assignments business. Clients buying digital cameras and shooting their own products because, well, “the pictures are good enough.”

Can you blame the buyers? They are laughing all the way to the bank.

A perfect example is the infamous Time Magazine cover from last spring where the magazine paid $30 for the cover image. Speculation is that the cover usually paid $3000.00.

The photographer was thrilled and admitted that the prestige of a cover tear sheet was worth way more than the money he received.

If a website offered all the pro dSLR’s on the market for $99 each, ignoring the true costs of building the cameras, who wouldn’t jump all over it? Throw in a ‘buy two bodies and get a free lens’ promotion and you gain even more market share.

I would do it and I bet you would also. We can’t blame the buyers!

Has the very stock photo agency we are so eager to join caused the demise of a sustainable income?

With a one-price-fits-all approach, all consideration to cost of production or uniqueness is considered of no value. That is what makes photography a commodity.

The image of climbers summiting Mt. Everest apparently has no greater value than the image of El Capitan on an average day.  One was easy to shoot while the other required extraordinary effort.

Even the mega stock agencies could not have imagined the impact that easy-to-startup microstock sites would slice so heavily into their market. In 2009 the only significant growth in the market was Microstock sites.

Did Getty think they could control this market by buying iStockphoto? For every Micro site gobbled up 10 more hatch.

Does the mega agent of today really care about the photographers they represent and their financial well being? Does Wal Mart care about the corporate well being of it’s jarred pickle supplier or its baby clothes supplier? It is known to tell the supplier what will be charged and its a ‘take or leave it’ proposal.

Do photographers have to take it or leave it? No they don’t. Many highly qualified photographers have dropped out after figuring out the micro business model does not work.

We all hear stories of the rock stars of Microstock, but they are few and far between. For every one of them how many are waiting for their first check?

Keep in mind that the stock photo industry is not ruled by the stock photo agencies. It is ruled by YOU and ME and EVERY photographer! We have the power to say yes or no.

How Not To Sell Your Photography as a Commodity

Value given to the client should be followed by value received from the client.

Recognize immediately that your work is worth something: like at least a few days worth of groceries, per image.

Learn to convince the client that photography has value and cost money to create and fight hard to get a decent price for your work by explaining that value.

Learn to explain that if they hire a photographer it will cost even more than your price.

Resist or even reject the notion espoused by many buyers that they can get it cheaper online. If they could they would. But they called you because they want your shot and they might think you are hungry and will take anything.

It will not kill me or put me out of business to turn down a web price of $2 or $25 or even $50?

I license no picture for less than $100 for the smallest usage.

One of the best ways to avoid creating commodity style photography is to create stunning original content that cannot be found with any other photographer.

If your work fits that description then it is a ‘work of art’ which means rare and should command fees accordingly.

We photographers are the ones in control!

Have an opinion? Share it with the readers.

Must Read:

Photographers Guide to Negotiating