January 30, 2007 by pmelcher.

    Now that the bedroom wall street stock market analysts wannabes have gratified us with their “copy and paste” insight of what Getty reported for 2006, it is time to move on to other more important topic. I am sorry, but to me, it’s like copy and pasting part of Bush “State of the Union” speech. What does one expect ? That they are going to say anything bad about themselves? Does anyone remember how Getty has just fired hundreds of their staff across the world ? Is that a sign that all is good and peachy? As far as I recall, it was mostly in the editorial field which they claimed grew by 18 %.
Whatever Jonathan Klein has to say about the photo industry is of the out most importance, whatever he has to say about Getty will always be doubtful. At least to those of us that use our brains for analytical purposes and not like sponges.

The photo industry business is quite like the music business. They license art. The key word here is license. And because their client base is consumers, they have had the hardest time to explain and implement the concept of licensing. You could somewhat compare it to renting, although renting only refers to a time constrain. Licensing adds many other layers, like geography and market. The music business, like the photo business, has had to deal with the digital evolution, and modifying the rules to adapt to a non tangible product (data bits). The Photo business as yet to seriously enter that market, at least for now. ( well, well well, maybe Getty is strongly looking into this with ViewImages.com, something I forgot to mention in my Rules of the Game entry).

Face with a product that could be easily replicated and used outside their licensed rights, Photo and Music did not dance together . Music embedded strong DRM ( Digital Rights Management) into their files, preventing further use besides the one approved, while photo decided to take the “catch me if you can approach” by putting a leash of its images (watermarking or tracking). Since Photo deals only, or mostly, with professional image buyers with a strong code of ethics, the result has not been too bad, for now.

But how to deal with those ignorant and selfish consumer? Because, if a photo business wants to grow, it will have to start licensing to consumers. Well, there is royalty free, like there is royalty free music. Fine. But that is not the bulk of the music licensing revenue, as it will not be the bulk of photo licensing revenue. If we consider Getty’s revenue alone, for lack of a better source, rights managed is the bulk of its business, by far.

Furthermore, with the transition of newspapers and magazines to the internet, more and more of the rights managed business is being used in a digital format instead of print. How do we prevent our licensing rights to be stolen from these sites. After all, the image buyers did nothing wrong.
Right now, some use expensive tracking and detection system like Picscout and other Digimarc. These businesses have found a loophole in the photo business on which they grow fat and wealthy. They wait until a license deal is broken and like a pack of wolves, descend on their targets with formidable lawyers, hoping to get some “side” revenues. They are ambulance chasers, as we call them in the US. The whole process is expensive, time consuming and not very nice. Most users didn’t even know they were breaking a law.

We could try and educate a consumer on what a license is: Good luck. You are talking about a population of more than 6 billion human beings.Even Microsoft has problems with that.

The solution ? Well, do what the music industry has been doing. Copy the I Tunes and other successful business models. Implement DRM for photography. Not a big deal. Inside the image, you have an embedded code, that could very well be the same as what the PLUS coalition is working and just, electronically, block further usage of images that have not been approved.
I am always surprised at how the photo business takes such a long time to innovate and takes such a long time to implement technological solutions.

Posted in web 2.0, finance, getty | Print | No Comments »

January 27, 2007 by pmelcher.

Wpn or otherwise called World Picture News acquired New York-based editorial photo agency Reflex News and its founder Carlo Montali joined WpN as Editorial Director and a minority owner.

I have no further comment, for now.

Posted in photojournalism | Print | No Comments »

January 25, 2007 by pmelcher.

- Photographers shoot images that they think photo buyers will want to use.
- Photo buyers purchase images that they think readers would like to see.
- Readers do not know what they want to see before they see it.

The less an image is important to convey a message, because text plays an important role, the less a photo buyer is ready to pay, regardless of the originality or quality of an image.

The more important is the image to the message, the more a photo buyer is ready to pay. Double that if the image is the only message.

What is currently happening ? Most photographers take picture they think Image Buyers will be interested in purchasing. They mostly base their decisions on past sales and assume that they can use usage patterns as projections. So they add the same type of content, thus diluting the value of their images by adding more volume.They do not pay attention to the actual final use of the image.
Other photographers ignore all the rules and just take pictures of whatever they want. It’s a hit and miss game, where some images might sell a lot or not at all.Others still will try and figure out what readers will want to see. They, unfortunately, also use past usage as an indication of future needs.

Finally, some do not pay any attention to past usage and use their “instinct” (certainly not an MBA word) to satisfy the readers’ craving for images. They do very well. They create the stuff of legends.

None really pay attention to the context of usage and how it relates to the image. Or so it seems.

Readers, image consumers, create these legends and are the end users of photography. Not photo editors. Too many times I see, over and over, photographers or editors at agencies trying desperately to please the photo editors, with absolutely no interest in what the readers like and how there images could fit in.

However, the same desperately try to understand how a photographer creates a market for his/her images. Seems obvious to me.
The Internet has leveraged the playing field, these days, offering a much more direct line of communication to the readers. I am still surprised that agencies, or photographers, do not take advantage from that. After all, what prevents a Getty or Corbis, Abaca or Sipa to create their own sites, or blogs, and post the images that they like ? They do it with cell phone providers already and license images almost directly to consumers.

It will be an interesting time when an agency or a group of photographers decide to go completely vertical and own the whole process, from creation to publication.
I know that some agencies currently sell prints to consumers (sometimes in a more or less illegal way) or even to blogs. But actually adding value to their content, it has not happen yet.

One idea would be to have a weekly competition: To those “week in pictures’ edits, add a “vote here” button so that you have a much better understanding of the market. After all, the people voting are the same ones buying those magazines, books and product advertised, thus paying your bills.

There are so many ways to leverage technology in your favor with minimal cost these days that it easy to see that those who will rule the market in 5 years are the ones experimenting with it right now.
~ On a completely unrelated note, I see that Corbis, the Viking tribe of photography, is going after the Smithsonian Institute. After destroying about every collection that they have touched, they are still at it. Someone should pass a law against these guys preventing them to continue their massacre. It’s getting obscene.

Posted in SIPA, corbis, getty | Print | 1 Comment »

January 23, 2007 by pmelcher.

First, note of interest:

The French government has awarded Goksin Sipahioglu, a good friend of mine and a living legend in the world of photography, the highest reward a civilian can get from the country, the Legion D’honneur. Those who know me personally know that I am not very found of the French governement, but this is quite amazing. Will we ever see the US government reward a photographer or a photo agency creator with a Medal of Honor? More on this story on PDN.

Felicitation Goskin !!!

Second and as important : Time has finally published some images of Marcus Bleasdale, one of the greatest photographer living. A very interesting multimedia. As per one of my earliest blog, the proof that the Internet might finally allow for more full length photojournalism features. You would have never seen this published in its integrally in a magazine : Congo at the Crossroads

All and all, a good week for photojournalism.

Posted in Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

January 21, 2007 by pmelcher.

I set up a new customized search engine. You can access it on the top left of this page (under the “ABOUT” link) or by clicking here.

The idea is to make it easy for someone to retrieve info about the photo industry while avoiding the “noise” of the internet. Since I can add specific sites to crawl, your suggestions would be great.

Enjoy….

Posted in keyword, google, web 2.0 | Print | No Comments »

January 19, 2007 by pmelcher.

Although I was aware it was coming, I read the news on PDN today. The media giant TIME, Inc has fired 289 people yesterday. Closing offices, laying off staffers, it is terrible. I know some of the people there and it hurts.

One of the very interesting comment made by a spokesman who appears to want to remain nameless was “…our focus on increasing efficiencies and allowing for closer collaboration between our digital and print businesses.” What does this mean?

Magazine publishing is closely following newspapers publisher in a move that will send everyone on the web. For a media businesses, it makes complete sense, because it is much cheaper to create and certainly much cheaper to distribute, which is getting very expensive. Furthermore, more and more people are getting their customized news on the web rather than in print. Finally, Print magazine cannot compete with the faster news cycle. Less and less people will wait a week to read a story about an event that was widely covered the same day by multiple web sites and the TV. What is happening at Time, Inc already happened at Hachette Filipacchi in France and soon, most certainly, in the US.
The same goes for celebrity magazine and it would not surprised me to hear about the same kind of move from the tabloids that are suffering the same type of competition . Let’s face it, even if we are not interested, we know about any major celebrity break up within minutes of it happening. It will be on line somewhere.

What does that mean for photography ? A few things, actually. Historically, image usage on a web site has been licensed for much less money than print. The main reason is that when website first appeared, they had little or no budget so most photographers/agencies reduced their regular space rate to a very low price. At the time, it was not such a big deal, no one really surfed the internet. Unfortunately, those prices have not change since while budgets have increased. Hopefully and despite those uninformed amateurs that give away their images for free, rates will increase.

Usage of images, along with video, should increase. There is more real estate on the web, more room to do longueur lay outs for much less money than print. More sideshows, galleries and video stream. Text is very annoying to read on a computer screen. We might even see the resurgence of photojournalism features.

Finally, I am sure I a missing a lot, not all magazines will be on the web. I do not see fashion magazines like VOGUE being able to migrate, or most monthlies for that matter. Since they are out of the news cycle and more or less create their own news, they do not have the same pressure.

This is in no way the end of magazines, but rather a repositioning, a replacement of its paper support to digital support. It will save paper and trees ( at least, I hope) and create new opportunities for photography.

Like everyone, I am disturbed by change and I worry about my friends that have been layed off. It’s always a terrible and traumatic experience. But I remain in good spirit about the evolution of editorial photography.

Posted in TIME, photojournalism, news | Print | No Comments »

January 18, 2007 by pmelcher.

   There are no absolutes in this business. Fresh young and not so young MBA’s, whether from l’ENA in France or Harvard in the USA have come and gone, and have left nothing behind them besides their rulers and equations, hopelessly ineffective.

There has been so many failed attempts to predict the future of photography that Sisyphus would not feel so alone anymore, if he only knew.

One of the big killer of photography is the sales analysis : The simple belief that what has sold will sell. Not that it is a bad exercise. One should know what image sold and which didn’t. Why ? would be a better analysis but that is much harder to quantify. How many times can you poll your customers before they hate you forever?

But the main reason it kills photography is that it makes a good case for repeats. It takes the logic of “it has sold therefore it well sale” to a scientific level. It assumes that there is a pattern to photo sales and that the market evolves according to some natural rule.

There is safety in numbers, or a sense of. Analyzing Excel spreadsheets with lots of tiny numbers spread throughout rows and columns makes for a good afternoon of hard work. And creates more and more images of computer keyboards and handshakes. But certainly does nothing to generate better images.

What frequently happens is that the thinking then proceeds in a vicious thought patterns that assumes that if you create more of the same and increase the price, you will be successful. Which, to make things worst, could happen to be true.

But really, if one would think hard and strong about who and why images are sold across the spectrum, one would notice something immediately.There is no pattern. And there is no projection to be done. There are so many non quantifiable variables that it is more an exercise in stupidity.

The logic of photography is talent. The one and only rule, the golden rule, the magic number, is creative talent. And this is where mediocrity fails.

It is really not hard to take pictures. And if it still is, the camera manufacturers are doing a hell of a good job of making sure it will not be. More and more people are taking good pictures. I am always amazed at the quality of images I see on Flickr. While some seem to be “accidents”, the majority are well thought. Same goes with Shutterstock, Dreamstime, Istockphoto, Fotolia and others. And this without counting on the emergence of independent professional photographers, finally finding their voice through portals such as PhotoShelter and DigitalRailroad. And now, they will also compete with agencies while setting their own prices.

Since they have no 50% or other fees than to pay themselves, there is a very good chance that they will price themselves, in the majority, much lower than agency pricing. And they will conquer their place in the photo world. Probably in a price point between Microstock and Agencies.

The first to loose in this competition is mediocrity. Bad images will stop selling because there will be an unbelievable amount of choice. Therefore, mass production bean counters will suffer greatly, more than their our now, at least. These are the first ones to complain about the emergence of new sources of content. They are already screaming, winning and emitting vocalized sounds that they would like to be the trumpets of the apocalypse.

But we should rejoice. More content means more great images. More great images means that the competition will finally go back to a level which it should have never left: quality. Great images, compelling images, genius, pure talent, art. A Mark Seliger or James Natchwey among many others have no fear of Microstock. For two reasons, they take incredibility great images and they have branded themselves. Commercial stock photographers, who have long lived in the shadows of their agencies should do the same. But that is a whole different topic already covered very well by AGE.

So let the competition begin and let us great images.

Posted in flickr, photojournalism, editorial, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

January 15, 2007 by pmelcher.

I have noticed something interesting. There is a fundamental difference between editorial photographers and commercial stock photographers. Commercial stock photographers are exactly that: commercial. They are the ones that spend the most time blogging and ranting. They have endless discussions on the economics of picture taking, from the cost of an image to the licensing prices, complaining ad nauseum about anything that might disrupt their forever menaced way of life. There is not one year that goes by without them complaining about a major threat to their trade.

They talk forever about ROI’s and RPI’s (Return Per Image), endlessly trying to apply the rules of owning a store to photography. One of the most amusing part is that most of them have no business education.

On the other side, you have editorial photographers who, when they blog, or meet each other, will talk endlessly about what they have just shot and what they are currently shooting. They will post or show their latest stories as proud parents and rarely will they talk about how much it has cost them to produced the shoot. Some, if not most, have a hard time being published. They work in an extremely challenged financial environment where day rates have not changed for more than 10 years and space rates are falling to ridiculous lows. But what matters to them most is the photography, not the dollars.

The same applies for agencies. If you go to a PACA or CEPIC meeting, conversations and panels are all about revenues and other Cost of Doing Business. No exhibits, no slideshows, no photographs, besides the one you see in catalogs lying on display tables. Photography as a commodity. Besides agency owners, no photographers attend these shows. I believe they are banned from these shows. And it is a little bit sad, because they are great images in these “photo banks”.

On the other hand, a visit to VISA is all about photography. Exhibits, slideshows, photographers with portfolios and more photos. People compare photos, talk about photos, look at photos, and speak photo. Of course there is business talk, but more of an instinct business talk. The gamble business talk : “I had a hunch this was a great story, so we send this guy to shoot it and it made 10 pages in Maris Patch magazine”.

Editorial photographers are not worried about Microstock because no one will ever go shoot a story on Iraq and sell it for one dollar a piece.

You can see the differences in community blog: While an historical group like bit.listproc.stockphoto has an extremely rich history of winning, complaining, ranting, crying and other boring “z’its the end of the world” post, Lightstalker, while not immune to potential photo martyrs, is much more alive in tips, suggestions, intelligent questions and answers about photography and not the “Business of”.

Of course you have ranting editorial photographers like EPUK in england and I am surprised they are not many, many more, considering the hard times they are going through. I think one answer I can offer is that editorial photographers are too busy shooting to spend hours on their computers giving others lessons in macro economy. If Getty’s stock goes up or down, it will not change their lives in the short term. They have entered this crazy world because they love photography and for no other reasons. They are passionate about their trade. They complain less and act more.

Editorial photographers are not worried about Microstock because no one will ever shoot a story on Angelina Jolie and sell it for one dollar a piece.

Commercial stock photographers and their agencies like to complain more and act less, preferring endless discussions about how to compete with Getty than actually competing with Getty. One of the current biggest threat to Getty is an agency hardly mentioned in the commercial world, Wireimage. Why is that ? because they spend less time ranting and more time on the front lines.

I would like to see a reunion of both, where great photography meets great economics, and when blogs are empty of complains and full of wonderful images.

Posted in CEPIC, slideshow, photojournalism, PACA, editorial, getty, news, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

January 12, 2007 by pmelcher.

For the upcoming week end, I thought I would share some links to a few web application I have been dying to play around with. Some are still in there infancy, others well on there way, but all our certainly a part of the evolutionary process of the FAWM project.
LightBox network : A very simple, yet efficient professional work flow management system. Mostly built for commercial stock, studio and assignment photography, this on-line application is widely used in to bridge communications between a photographer and an assigning editor. Speed, simplicity, extreme ease of use are some of the key aspect of this product that will certainly see many more releases in the future.

TrueColor: A freeware PHP based online photo editor that you can add to your website for non commercial usage. There are no specification of what you need to do to buy a license. Simple, to the point, quick, small, doesn’t replace photoshop but certainly simple and easy to use. Could be handy for a photographer on the road, using someone else’s computer, who need to do quick and simple adjustments.

Much more advanced is PIXN8 . One of the most horrible names in the industry but certainly one of the sexiest tools out there. A very advanced user interface that you can customize if you put t on your site, with a lot of option. The free trial versions has links to Flickr or Webshots to store images after you are finished, but I an sure you can change these destination to your favorite database.

FAUXTO has gone through great length to copy the user interface of Photoshop which obviously minimizes the learning curve for most users. No so sure what there business model is, if only to have an online paid version of Photoshop in the long term. again, simple, easy to use and does a what is says it will do. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thumbnail generator and Resizr : Two down and dirty simple , one function apps. Resizr can even be a firefox extension, which is useful for on the fly resizing.

One of my favorite, Myheritage.com who does a pretty good job at identifying faces. for a celebrity or spot news photographer, and with a lot of tweaks, this could be a great tool to automatically identify a subject and automatically caption an image.

All these Webdgets have one obvious drawback, is it that you have to upload your images. if you are stranded in a place with poor internet connectivity, you are all alone . Also, there might be some issues with copyright infringement as you are uploading images to some servers over which you have absolutely no control.

Finally, a great thank to one of my favorite website, Lifehacker.com who constantly post great info.

Posted in flickr, filter, photoshop, editorial | Print | No Comments »

January 10, 2007 by pmelcher.

Enough !!. Those that talk about the good old days of photography have no memory. They are the same who declared the photography industry dead when Royalty Free first appeared. And did the same when technology forced them to move to digital, which they did very reluctantly and backwards. They cried at the arrivals of the corporations saying that, that too, was the end of photography. Photography has died so many deaths. Poor thing.
These dinosaurs think like little boutique owners that wish for an ever immobile status quo. They would love to see a business world with no disturbance and thus no growth. When they see a supermarket opening next door, they spend more time complaining and winning then reacting to change, let alone creating change. The photography world is not different than the rest of the business world. It grows, it changes, it evolves, it mutates, but it never stays the same. It never will. This is why it is so fascinating and engaging.

It is still very much in its infancy compared to other industries, and yes, it is evolving very fast. Photographers had to switch from manual cameras as heavy as rocks with no light meter to automatic cameras. And then embraced the digital evolution by learning all there is to know about computers. You would never see that in any other trade.

Photographers are as much client friendly as agencies. They want their images published and paid for. That is why some of the best in the world work for and with Getty. It works. Photographers are not on the side of photographers, they are on their own side or the side of their successful agencies, “because they work only to please their clients”.

And that is the rule number one of any successful business: please your clients, not your suppliers. A photo agency that believes that success lies in satisfying their photographers will fail, for sure. Does Amazon.com work to please the book publishers or writers ? Does Wal Mart work to please the toy manufacturer ? Certainly not. But by allowing those suppliers to access a huge client base and generate significant revenues, I am sure they satisfy their needs. Just like the photographers.

So let’s stop winning about the “good old days”. When were those, by the way ? the 30’s, the 50’s. Or was it when photo agencies where still taking 50% of the photographers revenue from sub agents for no reasons. And losing transparencies. They never existed, these :Good ol’ Days”. The good old days are today, when everything is possible and still new, where the market is opening to new photographers and new customers. Where one has the ability to leverage technology to such a degree that what used to take 10 person a day to accomplish can be done in minutes.

and yes, like any other business, the customer is always right. They are the ones who declares an agency, or photographer, successful.

Posted in getty | Print | No Comments »