Specific vs General Stock Agencies

[tombartlett]

I'm looking into applying to submit my images into stock libraries. I have quite a bit of travel and wildlife

images. Would I be better off applying to a travel/wildlife specific library (Lonely Planet, Footprint) or a

bigger, more general library (Alamy, Getty)? My main concern is whether the smaller libraries, despite being

specialists, might lack the clout of the bigger agencies. This is all assuming I'll be accepted!

P.S. I don't think microstock is a suitable option.

[brian yarvin]

<p>Tom:<br>

We can't answer your question without knowing which of these agencies (or libraries) actually wants your work.</p>

<p>Your question is a good one in a hypothetical sense, but far easier to address with specifics.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>YMMV and OMMV but for example - in a 24 month time period I submitted 1500 images to Alamy and 1500 to a specialist stock agency. All the subject matter was similar - natural world, environmental issues, nature-based tourism etc.</p>

<p>The specialist agency made $150 sales. Alamy made almost 20 times that.</p>

<p>So draw your own conclusions from that!</p>

<p> </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I think you might do best with an agency thats hard to get into. If you can get in. The agencies that are not selective of photographers and images tend to sell the product for less and the ratios between number of images and number of customers is least favourable. See whether you can get into the most selective agencies. Find out how you can apply to be taken on and see how you do. This I believe is Brian's point. The biggest and best agencies turn down a lot more than they take, and there's a lot of travel and nature stuff around. They'll be looking for material that is better than of which adds a different angle from their current database.</p>

<p>The problem with agencies easy too get into is that the return may be insufficient in the absolute sense to make it worthwhile to scan (maybe), and edit each photograph to the standard the agecy require, within the revenue you actually lmake. </p>

<p>Also, if you have a particular specialism within travel/wildlife, find out whether there are agencies that share that specialism- not least because a specialist agency might just take the majority of a set of similar images whereas a mainstream selective agency such as Getty of Corbis will likely only take the best two or three and indeed will expect that you have edited down to the best ones only and then contract you not to place the similars elsewhere. </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Duplicated</p>

[mikael_karlsson]

<p>Tom:<br /> <br /> A "bit of travel and wildlife" images sound pretty general to me. I have always advocated that people specialize, especially when shooting editorial stock. When you have depth in the coverage in a specific topic/area you can offer so much more than what researchers and editors can find at generalized agencies as well as the micros. <br /> <br /> Like John I have images at Alamy. I've been with them for quite a few years now and they perform well for me. I'm very specialized and shoot law enforcement, prisons, forensics and related topics. For that Alamy works well. In addition I license images directly to the big national book publishers of books on criminology, criminal justice etc in the US. The combination works out really well for me.<br /> <br /> Take your and really study the agencies you're thinking about. You want an agency that knows your topics but that isn't over-saturated with similar images already. The balance can be hard to find. Look at the photographers that are with the agencies and contact a few of them. Ask about things like prompt payments, sales reports, communications etc. Signing with an agency is like any other business deal and should be done with care and afterthought. Personally I warmly recommend Alamy if what you shoot fit in with them. Alamy doesn't edit for content and I think this is a good thing since it gives the photobuyers a very wide variety of images typically not found in an edited collection.</p>

[tombartlett]

<p>Thanks to everyone for their advice.<br>

Brian: I'm confident in the quality of my work, but can't be sure of who will accept me until I apply. I don't want to apply until I know which agency I'd be the best fit for. So yes, I suppose it's kind of hypothetical at the moment!<br>

John: Congratulations of what seems to be a successful working relationship with Alamy, they're certainly topping my list at the moment.<br>

David: You've given me quite a bit of food for thought there, thanks for the advice.<br>

Mikael: Good advice to specialize. I was in South Korea for over a year, and have a lot of images from there and some surrounding countries. I also have good access to the world of yacht racing, but haven't made much use of that access yet. No time like the present however.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>You can apply and get a contract without committing to supply images to that company. Most photographers I know who take stock seriously have several agencies and will send a particular set of images to the one they think is likely to respond best in terms of acceptance and sales. </p>

[john_macpherson]

<p>David's advice is sound.</p>

<p>I would only add that a good working relationship with an agency is not just about the work you've alread got and are looking to place, but should also be concerned with future work. One of the agencies I worked with for over a dozen years (now no longer in business - swallowed by Corbis) welcomed contact and discussion with me whenever I traveled. They then advised me on specific subjects their files lacked and which had been flagged up by unmet requests. This kind of symbiotic relationship is not the norm, as far as I know, - many agencies I've seen ask that you dont pester them (!) but it is certainly a way of working that makes good business sense.</p>

<p>I was slightly surprised that the difference between the Alamy and specific agency income was so large when I checked. The images are not identical but are of the same subject matter, but the 'better' material went to the specific agency, so it just shows what sort of success Alamy is capable of.</p>

 

[DB_Gallery]

<p>The first thing you need to do is look at what is already out there, do you have something different to offer and it is done with a really strong / unique style that will sell? For at this point in time, if you are just average, you are wasting your time in even trying to pry-bar your way into a stock agency, it is flooded now with images and lots of us who still make a living with stock do it without an agency now days. <br>

Just remember, stock agencies don't care if you have confidence in your work or not, they only care about what you can offer their vanishing business models right now, not even tomorrow, that's it. It's easy to get a false sense of confidence in one's work on the internet forums that are chock full of compliments but hardly any real professional level of critique. <br>

If you have great access to a hard to reach niche *and* you are in the top 5% of that niche's talent pool, then by all means, go for it. But if you see many images in these collections that are as good if not better than yours, then you need to face reality.<br>

I hate to be so harsh, but I really don't understand the draw for general stock now days when it is going to earn you pennies on the dollar for all your hard work.</p>

<p>Good Luck!</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Daniel is right. In particular, "travel" and "wildlife" are completely overpopulated in stock libraries. You need something that truly sets you apart. Mikael's work is a good example - he shoots a lot of subjects that most people either don't have access to or don't shoot if they do have access. My own stock sales now are all driven from my personal library of shots that require access to shoot, which means there isn't a lot out there that competes with it. Even "top 5%" isn't going to be enough unless you have something that the rest of the "top 5%" doesn't.</p>