leaf:
I wrote to Shanon Fagan, the president of the SAA to ask if SAA had an official stance on microstock photographers joining.  This is what he replied and allowed me to quote him here.

Quote

The SAA Board has discussed the changes in the industry, and microstock is right up there on the agenda. Your readers are asking good questions, so let me try to provide some answers and perspective.

The SAA has no official policy excluding photographers on the basis that they shoot microstock.  The only basis for membership is that the candidate be a professional involved in professional photography, whether stock or assignment. We ask for credentials which could be a website, portfolio, client lists, distributor contracts, etc.  We are an association of professionals, not hobbyists, and our membership policy is designed to maintain that distinction.

Defining professional can be more or less difficult to define, as with the influx of Web 2.0 participants to many fields, defining professional is just as hard as defining who's serious?    Indeed many involved in microstock are clearly both serious and professional, and on the traditional realm we have many participants who skirt only occasional stock submissions just like you see in micro.

A practical issue at hand right now is that the SAA simply does not have the resources to expand our already busy advocacy role and education to an entirely new set of contracts, shoot methodology, and general support as would be needed for the micro end of the market.  While industry buzz is much about micro, and it is without a doubt gaining share, the majority (80-90% by current estimates) of stock revenues continue to be generated by traditional licenses.  Our priority must be to serve the business interests and needs of our current membership.

What I've observed is that the most serious and involved micro photographers have a tendency to participate only in micro, and the same goes for the traditional side of the market too.  Until there's more overlap, and convergence, it's likely that the SAA's emphasis will remain as is.  This may, indeed, change if and when more photographers with significant businesses in microstock begin joining the Stock Artists Alliance.   

At the present time, I'd say there's a genuine advantage to micro photographers to learn about and get to know the traditional side of the business.  That expertise is what the SAA provides to emerging pros (in both micro and traditional), and assignment photographers interested in stock.

This is a wealth of information and the SAA is the only trade organization devoted to providing it on a continual and updated basis.  The SAA is committed to being contemporary in the respects of where our market is headed.  A few years back, we expanded our missions from RM to all professional stock licensing.  This association, like our industry, is ever evolving.

We invite your feedback, your readers' input, and the start of an exciting dialogue!

Shannon Fagan

President
Stock Artists Alliance
www.stockartistsalliance.org


It sounds like a catch 22.  SAA can't begin to get involved in the microstock industry if there are no microstock members. And from what I hear hear in this thread, microstock photographers aren't interested in joining if is geared towards traditional photography.

I think SAA is a good organization and would like to see it represent both micro and macro... It appears that there is nothing in the way for that to happen except for the biases of us photographers.

I believe with the transparaency the internet has created a lot of what these interest groups used to do isn�t needed anymore. Everyone can use their own brain to think, we can all share information and when a storm cloud of angry contributors and buyers descends on an agency they will react.

Hi Lisa,

loads of respect here as well! :-)

I really don�t think the storm cloud has left istock untouched. But no, the decision wasn�t reversed.

But do you really think that a union would have achieved more? I doubt it, but here we differ of course.

Sometimes a management has to try something new even if it is unpopular. Inspite of the protest the new system had many good points, especially for new incoming exclusives (there was nothing to like for the non exclusives, I agree). Under the old system it had become extremely difficult to reach higher canister levels, the downloads had dropped as the prices increased, so the new RC levels that connect real value of the sale with your royalty level was intended as an improvement.

I know it backfired for many, especially mixed media contributors. I also dropped a level. But many people benefitted, you just don�t see them brag about it. Hardly anyone quit exclusivity about it.

Of course, I wasn�t happy about the lack of communication. As a moderator...well...you sit between all fires, nothing much you can do.

But if a union had existed - what would they have done???

And how do you organize a union with 80 000 people from around the globe?? If you have a union, then the members will have to sign voting power over to them for negotiations. I would never do that.

And just last week istock asked for contributors to nominate people they trust to discuss the fraud issue with them. I think that is a very good idea. If they do that more often, we would have a form of representation - free of charge, by the way (and thanks again to all the participants).

Ideally they would ask for new nominations depending on subject matter than we could have a fresh team everytime. Although Sean would be in high demand ;-)

So, no, we don�t have a union, but maybe "trusted contributors" are already a step in that direction.

So they do listen to the community. They have to anyway, internet marketing demands happy contributors. Discontent is bad for business.

But as the agencies grow, we also have to accept that decisions and changes will no longer be instant, but probably go through several layers of management.

And like I said in the thread on fraud: I look forward to any IPO, because the contributors become shareholders. Strong contributors like Sean might be asked by investors to sit on the board.

The internet changes at light speed, so I believe that we have all have more direct influence with our posts and discussions than we think.

I know istock is unpopular over here and with all the site problems, I can�t say I blame you, but FWIW anyone I ever met from management was genuinly interested in promoting the artists and the community. They are also very, very talented people. If they really just wanted to make money, they would be working in other industries. Doesn�t mean they don�t make mistakes. But they really do listen and read everything we write.

So, even without a badge I am optimistic...:-)

Not sure. I remember visiting a site of an association which was definitely against microstock (they said they could not represent photographers involved in microstock) but maybe it's not them, I can't remember exactly.

Anyway, why not let them represent whoever they want? it's their problem.

what ammount does any of you would pay for an organisation what "start" to fullfill these targets?

I don�t want to dwell on why I believe that selling a Lexus at the same price, as a Kia is silly. What I want to offer is a possible way out of this rabbit hole.

They can, and did, represent who they wanted. And apparently that didn't work out too well. But yes, it's their problem.

Just seems odd they would shut down rather than pursue a segment of contributors who have been outright asking for some sort of group to organize with.

so whats the difference between a guild and a union?

.... The Writers Guild of America always win when they choose to take a stand, unite and put down their pencils until their demands are met.

This is slightly OT, but I don't think that the the Writers Guild has always had such clear cut success. See articles here, here, here...

It's not that I'm in any way unsympathetic to the goals of the WGA, but the point in several of those articles is that in a sense you've already lost by the time you go on strike and that the glut of reality TV garbage that graces US airwaves is in part a result of some of the "win" in the 2007 writer's strike.

Quote from: gostwyck on March 24, 2011, 13:34

In this case microstockers were only ever seen as competitors undermining the industry and never as fellow stock photographers.

And weren't they (we)?

Microstock images were offered for a very small fraction than the traditional market would require, with very broad usage. Many were low quality or low resolution, but we know this changed. We accepted to sell for very little, and it looked great. We accepted subscription packages just because they would bring many repeated sales. Most have grown into more accomplished photographers, and now demand better return for their time.

Let's face it, most people here (most is not all) started to make money from photography in microstock, very few were photographers before microstock (either stock or assignment). Why would traditional photographers' join efforts with microstockers?

I agree with you, when microstock started. But after 3 or 4 years, when a lot of traditional photographers jumped into the game, figuring if they couldn't beat them, they could join them, the game changed. I think it was at that point that the Stock Alliance should have been a little more willing to make the change, too.