Top 8 RaduRazvanPhotography – 2017

Citeste in romaneste

I’m going to present you a rank of the main stock-photography agencies with which I am collaborating, based on their results from this year. The last ranking I made was 3 years ago. From then, the stock-photography systems suffered a lot of complex changes. I am going to write another special article in which I will present my opinion regarding these changes.

This particular classification is related to my personal experience and relationship with different agencies. This also can be seen as a case-study and cannot be interpreted as a general analysis of agencies’ improvement over time. Other stock photographers present their personal results in different ways. By analyzing more such type of articles, an overview of image agencies can be developed. Moreover, by comparing in time the evolution of different agencies related to my portfolios, some conclusions can be drawn.

As you may know, I am active in stock-photography since 2004, by the time when the microstock system had produced a revolution in this field. My portfolio is varied and diverse, with over 20.000 images. I am collaborating with a great number of agencies of various sizes and fields of activity. My ranking will not provide exact values of agencies’ incomes nor will it specify the range between the generated incomes by different agencies. However, it will offer an overview of the evolution of different agencies.

Over time, I have reached the conclusion that for a stock photographer who collaborates with agencies there are 2 important factors in defining an agency:

1. the income produced by the agency

2. the stability of agency, characterized by its capacity to produce an acceptable income for a sustainable long period of time without major strategic changes that can determine a lower income. As for instance: changing the criteria of image selection; deleting images already accepted; introducing new diminished commissions; the frequency and severity of technical incidents encountered as well as the capability to get them solved in a rapid and effective way; the modern techniques etc.

The income is a very precise benchmark. The stability is a relative factor because it depends very much by my personal interpretation. By combining these two factors I believe that it generates the „perfect measure” for agencies’ classification.
Depending on these 2 parameters, I’ve included some grades based on which the agencies can be sorted quickly:

A. GOOD- Agencies with this rate ensure an acceptable income and a good stability. If the agency’ rules and the requirements are met you can be sure that you will get a reasonable income.

B. MODERATE- Agencies with this type of rating can ensure a reasonable income but this is not very sure. For some reasons, the income is not a constant one and it might happen anytime to get undesired results although following their specific rules. There are agencies which often change their requirements; have frequent technical defects, which affects the purchasing capacity; have commission policies regarding non-performing photographies; random changes of these policies; they introduce with a negative impact the new technological updates and new sales techniques; randomly deleting already accepted images or changing the selection criteria of images, etc. This particular category has 2 main sub-categories:

B1- Positively moderate- These are agencies which offer a reasonable income without certain stability but they show up in progress and are future potential candidates for A level.

B2- Negatively moderate- These are agencies whose income and stability are in a downfall. This rating shows that in those respective agencies something is going wrong, although in previous periods of time they improved well.

C. BAD- These agencies have a constant bad evolution; on the one hand they generate a reduced but constant income and on the other hand they have a really great instability or both income and stability are affected.
The results will be presented briefly in a table which will offer an overview of agencies’ evolution. Clicking on the name of each agency in the classification below the table you can see my opinions about the evolution and improvement of that particular agency in 2017.

For 2017, Top 8 RaduRazvanPhotography will look as below:

1.Shutterstock

2.iStock by Getty Images

3.AdobeStock-Fotolia

4.Dreamstime

5.123rf

6.Depositphotos

7.Bigstockphoto

8.Alamy

If you find interesting my report, I invite you to follow my Facebook page, to find out when I will present my following rank, probably at the end of the first quarter of next year. By then, new types of agencies could also be included in the charts, if their performance is proved.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *