Stock image consultancy firm Visual Steam recently published a summary of their 2014 survey of US art buyers in stock image licensing. It outlines some of the major trend lines from the previous year (continued pricing pressure, use migrating to online and away from print), and provides insight into buyer habits across sourcing, pricing models used most, and “top of mind” destinations for sourcing images (it’s still Getty’s game, but Shutterstock continues to nip away).
Comparing trends between this year and last might reveal glacial-type movements among art buyers, who largely have not changed their habits over 12 months. What about 5 years? The publication Graphic Design USA, for many years, has been publishing its own stock visual survey (itself sponsored by a commercial stock licensor). Have 5 years of buyer habits changed all that much, and what do their habits reveal about trend lines and the stock industry’s response? Similarities between GD USA’s 2009 survey and Visual Steam’s 2014 are close enough for comparison.
The use of motion has increased greatly over 5 years, according to those polled. In 2009 the amount of buyers licensing motion was 35% — today it is 73%. The amount of producers and licensors of motion have not commensurately increased within the stock industry, so where is increased demand met? Is inventory finally being exploited across Getty, Pond5 and others, or has the increase in use been met through assignment?
41% of buyers polled in 2009 said they use stock more than in the previous year. 60% of buyers polled in 2014 said they expected to increase their use in the coming year. While this comparison is reality vs. forecast, it does not at a general volume increase year over year, which should be aligned with ad growth. However, sales volumes do not equal revenue volumes. To further illustrate the eclipse of digital over print, almost all of those surveyed in 2009 used stock for print campaigns, and today it’s roughly half.
To which pricing and licensing models does the money go? RF licensing still sees the lions share, which is little surprise. RF saw over half (54%) of what was spent in 2009, while 2014 increased to 59% over RM. What was not tracked in 2009, but relevant today, is Free use – 13% accounted for total licenses acquired in Visual Steam’s survey, making the rise of direct to photographer sourcing by buyers a powerful theme. Certainly, Flickr, Creative Commons, Google Images, and outside distribution and sharing has accelerated this trend. Spending little, if anything, is still a major driver in content sourcing: only 23% said that quality trumps price every time.
Perhaps a trivial difference, while most all sourced their imagery online in 2009 quite a few were reliant upon print catalogs and CDs. While GD USA’s poll doesn’t give us buyer preferences around where they source, Visual Steam’s does, and Getty is still top of mind among stock licensors. Getty and iStock accounted for well over half of those who were asked of an immediate “go-to”, with Shutterstock not far behind. Corbis and Veer are very much considered tier 3. These findings certainly reflect market share capture. A distant, yet powerful, source was Google Images, but what remains opaque is whether this a front door to industry licensors who benefit from tagging and ads or a method for sourcing outside of stock licensing (and what is the differential?).
Buyers seem to have grown accustomed to subscription and trolling micro sites for cheap RF in the past 5 years, since questions in 2009 (“have you used a micropayment site?” and “have you used a subscription service?”) seem as antiquated as print catalogs and CDs. No doubt, with the move by iStock to go up market with its Vetta collection (and with Shutterstock mimicking the same in its recent Offset), buyers are challenged to break old prejudices even if in practice it was a shell game of content by the licensors.
Will we see the same prejudices – this time with user-generated content – be defeated in 5 years time? UGC was raised as a question in 2009, and over 1/3 of respondents said they’d used UGC at some point in a campaign. Oddly, Visual Steam’s survey did not cover UGC. On the tip of the tongue in 2009, today it remains as fragmented and immature a market as ever, with many startups and incumbents seeking traction and market acceptance as iStock did. What most photo tech companies who venture into monetizing UGC for the stock buying community consistently fail to grasp is that quality still is paramount (quality implying provenance – or assurance of rights), and that a simple exercise in aggregation does not account for the convoluted landscape built on the preferences and practices of a fickle market. Is 5 years really that long a time to solve the problem?