Is it the end for high-end stock photography production?

I asked three stock industry stalwarts, what they think will happen to expensive shoots. High-end production: Is it dead, or just sleeping? After all we haven’t seen any or much of it for a while now….

Here are the answers they gave.

Steve Pigeon, President & Founder Masterfile:

“I don’t believe low price stock images will kill big and expensive productions completely, but those productions are sure to become a lot more scarce.  In a normal world, scarcity would drive up the value of those productions but this isn’t a normal world.  There’s a good chance that scarcity of big ticket stock image productions will drive clients back to commercial assignments – which is something that pro photographers have been waiting 30 years to see!  So the wheel has come full circle: Assignment –> RM stock –> RF stock –> Microstock –> Assignment.  That may be an over simplification since all licensing models are going to coexist to some degree, but I do believe we will see a resurgence in assignment photography in the next decade.  Wouldn’t it be ironic if the ascendance of $ 1 images is what drives clients back to doing $ 25,000 commercial shoots?”

Glenn Parker, CEO Photolibrary:

I think the point is not so much this supposed “low priced” stock images that has killed the independent production companies but rather a move back towards a traditional model. (BTW we don’t agree it is all doom and gloom at a pricing level and we have seen the decline stop especially over the past year).

When there were production companies the big word was “wholly owned” because it presumably gave the production house flexibility in pricing and distribution (plus to be honest it was seen as a quick money spinner as you were always open to be bought!!). Those days have gone. We still get good quality highly stylized content but it is now from either individual photographers who are paid a commission or from photographer groups who again are paid a commission on their work.

So there is money to be made from “image creation” rather than using the word “production” at an individual photographer level as they will be more cognizant on costs. However not at a corporate production company level like the old days – aka Jupiter etc. The expensive bit for the old production companies was not so much in the variable cost of the shoot but the after work. The editors, keyworders, retouchers, pre production staff, finance people to make sure everything was spent correctly, executives who then had to manage the whole thing etc. I think you get the picture!!! That added quite a lot to the cost of any shoot (i.e. more than double). A photographer can and does keep a much tighter control of those costs and therefore can still get a good return on his or her images if the quality is good.

Don Wieshlow, SVP Products Corbis:

Regardless of the audience for content – premium, mid, micro – there is a need for all content creators to produce in a cost-efficient manner.

Even before the growth of low-price images, most quality content creator were working hard to not have big, expensive productions. There are too many other costs associated with competing that work against over-spending on productions. Nothing has changed in that regard.

Do you agree with what they have say? Please post your replies and get the debate going.