Using Dupes to Increase Stock Photo Sales

Increasing Stock Photo Sales With DUPLICATE Transparencies.

by Royce Bair

On 23 Feb 1996, Stephen Wolf wrote to the STOCKPHOTO mail list:
>i'm curious to know what everyone's experience has been re. payment for
>stock agency dupes.

>i'm starting up with a new stock agent who insists that i pay for all dupes
>that he'll be sending out to fill client requests. this has kind of thrown
>me, since my agreements with the 2 agencies i'm currently working with
>clearly puts the dupe responsibility on the shoulders of the agency.

>what is the norm in this situation? seems to me that since, in this case,
>i'm covering the cost of creating the images and advertising in a source
>book, that he should AT LEAST split the difference with me in the cost of
>dupes (only about US$1.75 each, btw). [My decimal point placement --Stephen had written "$175", which I think was a typo --Royce.]

There are two kinds of duplicate transparencies (or dupes):

1. "In-camera" dupes that you make at the time of the original photo shoot.
2. Dupes that are made by copying an original transparency.

Naturally, in-camera dupes are usually the cheapest dupe, with the highest quality. In-camera dupes are not always practical on many subjects like people where expressions are always changing.

WHY DUPE AN IMAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE?

1. It's always nice to have a back up in case something happens to the original.
2. To increase the exposure of that image, and therefore its chances for sales.

The savvy stock photographer will try to get his/her images with as many clients and stock photo agencies as possible, either directly, or through sub-agents of his exclusive agency.

An experienced stock photographer who knows the market will often crank out several in-camera dupes while shooting a subject that he thinks will sell. Some photographers who are represented by several agencies will blast off a dozen or more images of every subject they shoot. One has to be a little careful with this approach though, because not every subject one shoots will sell, no matter how good you think you know the market! The "80/20" business principle where "20% of your product line will make 80% of your sales" often applies even more exponentially to stock --it's usually more like 95% of your sales being made by 5% of your images.

For this reason, many photographers who work directly with multiple agencies (non-exclusive contracts) often have dupes made of the best images after they (and at least one agency) have had a chance to jury the shoot. (Ever notice how the shot you thought looked so good through the lens [so you fired off a zillion frames], looks dead on the light table, and the ONE shot you made at a slightly different angle now looks the best?!) And if more than one agency starts picking the same image, it's time to start making more dupes of that image.

One of the most popular forms of dupes in our industry is the 70mm dupe. It can be made from any size original, but the most common size is 6cm x 9cm (2 and 1/4 inches by 3 and 1/4 inches) when reproduced from a 35mm original. Although it is considerably more expensive than a 35mm dupe, it is much less expensive than a 4x5 dupe, and nearly as impressive. And "big" is still "better" to a lot of amateur art-directing clients (like the 80-year old chairman of the board who always has to approve everything). A properly made 70mm dupe will capture much more detail than a 35mm dupe, and is often indistinguishable from the original in actual reproduction tests. (Our tests show that now matter how good a 35mm dupe is made, reproduction quality starts to wane above 1/2 page size, as compared to a 35mm original.)

A 70mm dupe made in the U.S. will cost from about $3.50 to $8.00. This cost can often be reduced to about $1.75 to $3.50 each if multiple dupes are made at the same time. A word of caution though, there is often a tendency among photographers and agencies to make a large number of dupes because the per-dupe price is so much better. It's been my experience that even with catalog images, your success ratio is still only about 50%, where some of these images will only sell a few times or not at all. Rather than make 10+ dupes of every image in the catalog, why not make just 3 to 5 dupes each (still a good price break), then make more later on those images that start to show a good track record? This is a decision one has to make after comparing labor and time against possible waste. Would it be better to get all the dupes made now that you could possibly use, rather than having to track down the original again at a later time --even if you do waste money on 50% or more of your choices?

Keep in mind that these prices are only for the raw dupes. This does not included mounting or labor to transfer captions. By the way, a good source for all kinds of self-sealing mounts is our own photo product & supply division. Photocraft in Boulder Colorado, produces the best 70mm dupe in my opinion, from any size original, and at attractive prices for multiples.

WHO SHOULD PAY FOR THE DUPES --Photographer or Agency?

Naturally, the photographer who makes in-camera dupes or who submits dupes to multiple agencies, has already paid for the dupes. But what about dupes made by the photographer's agency?

It is often said that photographers should pay for their production expenses to create the images, and agencies should pay for their expenses to market those images. However, many agencies charge back some of those marketing expenses to photographers where their marketing will directly benefit the photographer (i.e. catalogs), either by deductions from sales or by taking a higher commission (i.e. returning 25% vs. 50%). Because the image (whether it is an original or a dupe) is the copyrighted property of the photographer (and photographers are responsible for providing that image), many agencies believe that the photographer should pay for dupes or at least share in their cost. This is especially true where all dupes made by the agency are required to handed over to the photographer if a contract is terminated.

Just as the photographer should be careful in making too many in-camera dupes before he has the chance to properly evaluate the marketability of that image, he should also keep a tight rein on the inexperienced agency who might have a tendency to go "dupe-happy" with lots of charges to his account.

Some agencies charge for dupes, and other agencies charge nothing for dupes, but take higher commissions. To understand why, let's look at the reasons agencies make dupes:

WHY AGENCIES MAKE DUPES

1. Back up an image that is selling well. Just like the photographer, the agency knows that if the original gets trashed by a client, it's all over for sales. Once an image begins to sell, researchers in the agency take notice and start sending the image out on every request that comes in on that subject. Soon, dupes are needed in order to fill simultaneous requests. This need may be short-lived due to a passing trend or fad, or it may last indefinitely as in an image that becomes a timeless classic. Here at The Stock Solution, we usually pay to make these dupes and only charge the photographer if he terminates his contract and wishes to take them with him when he leaves the agency.
2. Catalog images. This is probably the most common reason to make dupes. And because most catalogs are distributed not only by the originating agency, but by several sub-agents, another set of dupes is required for each. Many agencies include the duping costs as part of the total catalog expense and ask the photographer to share (co-op) in those expenses. Other agencies charge nothing for catalog placement (and the associated dupes), but give only a 25% commission on catalog sales; and a few agencies charge nothing, because they recoupe the dupe set costs (and even part of the catalog costs) from their sub-agents who are required to purchase the catalogs and a set of dupes. At The Stock Solution, we co-op "directory" catalog image expenses such as those images published in "source" books like the Stock Workbook and the Black Book. These source books publish their advertising rates, so the photographer knows exactly what our expenses are. We rarely ask our photographers to share in expenses for in-house produced catalogs, or dupes for these catalogs.
3. Dupes to sub-agents. Even before an image is placed in a catalog, some agencies will increase an image's exposure by sending out dupes to their sub-agents. Again, charge-back expenses and practices for these dupes vary with the agency. At The Stock Solution, we usually pay for these dupes. In our case, the sub-agent usually takes a 40% commission, and forwards 60% of the sale to us. We usually take a 40% commission, which leaves the photographer with 36% of the original sale. Because we have only set up the arrangement, and transferred monies, we feel we should at least pay for the dupe in order to earn our commission!

Return to other FAQ | Our Home | View Our Images

Royce Bair, Director or Douglas Pulsipher, Manager
The Stock Solution
(A Stock Photo Agency)
6640 s. 2200 w.
West Jordan, UT 84084 USA USA
Phone: 801-566-8684

E-mail us: info@tssphoto.com