Rules of the Game

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 »