STOCK IMAGE VS. CUSTOM PHOTOGRAPHY
In an ideal world, every client would have the time, budget and resources to shoot an original, one-of-a-kind photo that conveys the desired message.
But that's not reality.
No one understands that better than Andy Batt, a professional photographer who shoots both custom and stock photography. "A custom photograph gives you the ability to deliver your message succinctly, in a very focused and targeted way toward a campaign," emphasized Batt. "You have a lot of control. You get built-in exclusivity. No one else has that image." Karl Sandell, senior HMH staff photographer, agrees. "With original photography there are no compromises. You get exactly what you want. It allows for more creativity, and sparks new ideas on the fly. Now that I shoot digital, I see the shot immediately and can make it even better."
Another important point, according to Dani Saxman, HMH design director, is that shooting a fresh, original shot keeps communications up to date. She cautions that if the designer is not painstakingly vigilant, stock photography can look behind the times. "Clues in the photo like a car, laptop, cell phone, or changing skyline date it. Styles change. You don't want to talk about your product being the latest and greatest when the image is 20 years old and it shows."
There are instances, however, when stock photography is a viable option. Batt, Sandell and Saxman concur that, when you have a need that's generic, stock can be a great choice. And then, there's the obvious "We need it tomorrow!" situation when there's simply not time for a shoot.
But is stock always easier on the budget? There is a perception that stock always is more affordable and sometimes it is. But beware of hidden costs. Saxman and Batt point out that there often are hidden costs, such as the hours spent searching endlessly for a stock image to shoehorn into a concept, or forcing a designer to, as Batt calls it, "Frankenstein" four or five stock images together.
Saxman finds stock useful to move the creative process forward, especially when doing speculative work or comps. "Today, stock photography often times replaces what used to be marker comps," she says. "Designers also draw on stock photography when building style boards or creating brand style guidelines for photography."
Know your rights.
Back in the old days, stock photography houses typically represented a specific group of photographers. They signed exclusive agreements with the agencies that, in turn, aggressively sold the work of that photographer. All that has changed. In today's market, stock agencies represent hundreds of thousands of photographers. While there are more photos to search through, the quality of images varies greatly.
Companies (or their ad agencies) must be intimately familiar with the rules governing the usage of the photos they purchase. Basically, there are two types of stock licensing models:
- Rights Managed (RM)
- Royalty Free (RF)
In basic terms, a Rights Managed license is defined by use, while Royalty Free is a license defined by unit.
RM stock is carefully and selectively licensed. All uses are recorded, so clients know ahead of time if there are any conflicts or concerns. An image license will have varying degrees of exclusivity, such as by category or geography, for a specified time period.
RF stock licenses are based on units, which could mean a single image, a collection of images or even a subscription period that allows unlimited access to images for a set price per year. Since clients have virtually unlimited usage rights, the same image can be used by any company for any number of uses with few restrictions. Not all RF vendors are equally careful about model releases and other paperwork.
And then there's exclusivity.
Shooting an original image also means you can buy exclusivity rights (usually for a specified period of time). If you're buying a Rights Managed photo or leasing from a reputable house and you pay for exclusivity in the market, you can be assured that none of your competitors will run the same photo. If not, you could end up running your ad right against your competitor's, with the same image, or an outtake from the same shoot. "You can end up with a very confusing message, because it looks like your company is using the same photography as your competitor, or even that the business may be associated with yours," Batt says. "At the very least, it can be confusing. At the very worst, you're either reinforcing your competitor's messaging or diluting your own."
Batt recalls a well-documented case in 2004. Gateway Computers and Dell used the same Royalty Free image of a college-age girl on campus for their back-to-school campaigns. Both companies ended up running an ad in the same Sunday paper. Both featured the same model, at the same location, with only a different outfit to distinguish the two. Saxman calls it, "showing up to the dance wearing the same dress."
Lack of identity such as this can mean unexpected costs long after the music ends. What can you do? As an advertiser, always obtain a copy of the release. If you're working with an ad agency, it will handle this for you. Rights protection is critical for eliminating the market overlap that leads to brand confusion such as the infamous college student scenario.
Whether you go custom or stock, work with your designers to carefully choose the images that represent your business. Saxman points out the commonalties between both: "Bad is still bad, and good is still good." Sandell adds, "A picture paints a thousand words. Be careful that it doesn't paint a thousand negative words."
