July 31, 2007 by pmelcher.

NowPublic, a Community driven web 2.0 Canadian website has scored $10.6 million in funding in the hope of becoming successful. If a traditional photo agency, with an existing and proven business model, with photographers under contract would try to get such funding, they would be escorted out the door while hearing laugher in the background.

So what makes NowPublic so special ? Or any other Crowdsourcing powered site so special to investors ? well, part of it is the free labor. In the case of NowPublic it is unclear what percentage they will offer if and when they license an image. Images seems to be held in the Flickr happy Creative Common arena right now. Maybe those “news ” photographers will be happy just to see their credit, and why shouldn’t they ? Or license via AP, as NowPublic offers as an option. But then, why send your valuable images to NowPublic when you could send them directly to AP and cut the middle man ?
What amazes me is that publishing news images taken by amateurs is as old as the photo agencies business. It is called “pick up” in English, and “recup” in French. What everyone seems to forget about the now infamous London bombing images is that, if wasn’t for the professional photo agencies that licensed them, no one might have seen them. It is one thing to get an image, it is a whole different world to know how to license it.

Even NowPublic, who has a licensing deal with AP, knows that.

But no one ever thought of making “pick ups” their unique revenue stream, and for a good reason. Events of a magnitude big enough to justify hunting down an amateur for coverage are rare and few. Certainly not enough to run a business.

Photo agencies have been aware of this for a long, long time and thus have paid professionals to cover the more regular news. Apparently this information has not hit Canada, nor some venture Capitalist. However, the fact that they can sell the company to a Getty or a Corbis as did Scoopt.com could be the motivation behind the investment.

Once again we see the continuing trend of building a website where everyone can participate, make a lot of marketing noise, get some venture money and hopefully sell it to someone before it crashes: that is Web 2.0.

Photography is a prime target since Yahoo bought Flickr. It is also very easy to set up and operate. There is plenty of freeware that makes it cheap and available to anyone.

I suggest the next multi million dollar user generated, community driven platform should be one where users can exchange images of cows.

NowPublic article

Posted in flickr, corbis, getty, Uncategorized | Print | 1 Comment »

July 30, 2007 by pmelcher.

As I was writing my post about the exploitation of the masses by a few, I realized I was missing one very important point regarding microstock: it is a pass time of rich people.

For one, you need reasonably good quality camera equipment that still runs in the thousand of dollars. A lot seem to be using a canon 5D which is $4000 out of the box. You also need a decent quality computer and appropriate software, which still also runs in the lower thousands. And finally, you need a broadband connection which might not be so expensive but yet not available everywhere.
Second, you need time. Either you are supported by someone else, as we see in the housewives model, or you are personally so indescribably wealthy that you can spend hours working on something that will bring you back pennies. If you can afford to spend a lot of time on something that has little chance to pay your bills, let alone cover the cost of the equipment, you must have some other reasonable income. Nothing new here as photography was always the protected playground of rich kids. Niepce, Lartigue, Bresson, and many others came from wealthy families.
But make no mistake, Microstock contributor is not an activity that will lift third world nations out of poverty and into the realm of the most powerful nations. It is not going to help a starving family of five come out of misery and live a life of decency.

It is an activity for the few, the wealthy, the somewhat educated that have enough leisure time to dedicate to an activity which is not a profitable one for the mass majority. Even superstars of the microstock world had to rely on other income before they reached those legendary six figures income. On a side note, if famed Istockphoto shooter Lisa Gagne is really making $100,000 a year, why aren’t any of her images on the Getty site ? After all, if she is that good, shouldn’t she be rewarded by having her status elevated to being one of the “Big Boys” ?

Besides being a “dumping” business model, where creators license images at a lost, illegal in certain countries of the world, Microstock is also a club for the few and privileged that can afford to spend time on a non profit activity that might satisfy their ego but not their wallets.

Posted in transaction, getty, Microstock | Print | 15 Comments »

July 28, 2007 by pmelcher.

Mark Kuschner, Getty’s global VP of entertainment. “We’re never going to get into the business of the long lens, hiding in the bushes, hunting people down.”

-Variety Magazine-July 6, 2007

Getty Images website. July 28, 2007.

Posted in getty | Print | No Comments »

July 26, 2007 by pmelcher.

While Johnathan klein, CEO of Getty is running to New York, leaving wife and children behind in rainy Seattle, to cheer up the investment community in a desperate effort to convince them that their stock is attractive, it seems that some sort of messy chaos is going on.

First, they bundled their footage in their constraining rights ready format, making it impossible for the little guys to license their offering ( too expensive). Great insightful article on the Stock Asylum.
Second, they start playing basic market laws with istockphoto. They are raising prices in order to see if the demand will follow. Even if they loose some customers in the process, they will gain with the increased price per image. Expect them to continue to do so until they find an equilibrium. If they are successful, they might even suck up the air from other microstock companies. Ooops, sorry, I mean photographers.

Finally, they have now decided to put all production of Filmmagic and Wireimage on the Getty site. Which is fine if you do not think about it too much. But consider this. Getty, like Mediavast, have free lancers who are paid on commission too. Thus, Mediavast photographers get double exposure by being on their original sites AND Getty. While the Getty photographers can only be on the Getty site, thus have a lesser chance to sell their images. What is the thinking, if any, behind this process ? Shouldn’t they be offering their free lancers the same opportunities that they offered the Wireimage and filmmagic photographers? Especially since Getty’s photographers tend to be much more talented than the mediavast’s ones. Expect strong rumbling from Getty’s freelancers, if not some departure if this keeps up.

Once you get too obsessive in trying the please your investors instead of your client base, you start making mistakes. Unfortunately for companies that are public or borrowed huge amounts from VC’s, they cannot do otherwise.

Posted in finance, editorial, getty | Print | No Comments »

July 24, 2007 by pmelcher.

“community driven” is another word for free labor. What was once a nice idea for online collaboration between designers, post and use images from each other, has become, thanks to the whole Web 2.0 false aura of mutual benefaction, a form of workers abuse.

While the business world is trying hard to find ways for their workers to have more say, control and protection from their companies, Web 2.0 and their photographic association, microstock, are doing quite the opposite. At 20% to 40%, at the most, on images selling on average for $2.50 a piece, with absolutely no job security, the only winners are the new robber barons of the photography industry.

Sure you hear stories of housewives liberated from the constraints of their horrible cheap husbands making in the $100,000 of dollars a year. At 30%, the company makes $300,000 of pure, unaltered, organic and fat free benefit. Considering the low cost of bringing these images to market, as everything as automated as possible, the profits are extremely high. Isn’t the idea of community to share EQUALLY ?
If a company were to do the same to its workers, even its free lancers, especially in Europe where the social laws are stronger, we would have a revolution in our hands. And for a good reason. It is no big surprise that these so called community sites flourish in the United States where social laws are almost inexistent.

The real question for these businesses, relying on user interaction is how long will the users will be willing to play the game. After all, would you start a car factory where workers come when and wherever they want to ? Sure you would pay them less, but what happens if no one shows up ? Once the novelty of making a few bucks a month out of a pass time dies down, where will these micro stock companies will go for images?

Granted, the ones now owned by big publicly or not held companies can also be a trash can for existing images ( ie Getty, Corbis) . Others will have to increase their compensation plan if they really want to remain freshly fed with new images. Because $100 a month, even for housewives, as we are taught to believe, is not enough to feed a family. And they spend almost as much time as a pro to deliver images.

Or international worker legislation might interfere, especially in Europe, as they start smelling a quite rotten fish in the beautiful kingdom of photography. In France, for example, a photo agency is required to pay social security for every free lancer that submits images, out of their commission. A company like Fotolia, created in France, probably gets away without paying by declaring itself a software company. How long before other photo agencies scream unfair competition and drag them, and other microstock companies, into court. Both Corbis and Getty images have offices in France too.

We are in the medieval ages of photography, after all, with its serfs and lords. And we are living the same worker’s abuse that we had thought our civilized western world had abolished.

Posted in Royalty free, Microstock, Uncategorized | Print | 9 Comments »

July 23, 2007 by pmelcher.

Over and over one can read, or hear, that photojournalism is dead, or dying. And it is, but not for the reason that one might think.

What is really dying is the journalism in photojournalism . A while back photographers were great investigators, reporters, that would uncover a story and bring it to the world’s attention through images rather than text. They would find a story and treat it, from beginning to end, with images.

These days, photojournalists have become article illustrators. They either stroll along a word reporter and photograph accompanying images for the article, or are told to shoot specific images that would fit nicely with the story. That is when they get an assignment. Otherwise, they will read a story somewhere and replicate in images what they have read about.

It is rare these days to discover images that really break a news story. Images that perform the tasks of informing. Today’s photojournalist should be called newsillustrators as they battle each other for the best spot a news conference or nice angle at a parade. There is much more to photojournalism then being there at the right time.

Salgado brought us the famine in Ethiopia like no journalist could had ever done . The result was as powerful as the images themselves as they led to worldwide concern and involvement into what would have otherwise been a paragraph in the New York Times international briefs. The same photojournalists that complain about the lack of space for stories are the same that are not providing stories.

In order to be revived, photographers need to rediscover investigation. They should find the stories to shoot, make sure it has not already been covered a thousand times, either by article or other photographers, and do a thorough job in explaining in images what they see.

Currently, most rely on the opinions of editors at photo agencies or NGO’s who provide for their expenses. The goal is to be published, not to report. The intent is wrong from the start. Its style over substance. It takes an independent mind with an uncanny need to dig for the truth. To be more curious about the world than the rest of us. To keep on digging where others have left off.

There are a few misconception that are floating around. First is the need for speed. Its becoming an arm race to deliver images as quickly as possible. What used to be the domain of wire service photographers is now spreading to everyone. If my images get there before the others than I must be good. While it might help in being published because your images got just on time to hit a deadline, it is not photojournalism, its playing the odds.

The second misconception is style over substance. Thanks to photography museums and other grants, photojournalism is being thought as fine art. Therefore photographers go through great efforts to be different and create a style. They forget that they are journalist before all and start regarding themselves as artist. Thus the appearance of Holga’s, Lensbabie’s and other interference. The result is a detachment from the subject of the story and a complete lost of interest from the readers.

The third is a reliance on traditional media. Most photographers these days cannot see past the usual forms of medium to support their images. Photography and photojournalism is not a conventional tool and should not be treated as such. As much as the images must exist to inform, as much as the medium should support the language. There is no mold for how to create a great story, thus there should be no traditional way to make it visible. The rules should always be broken in order to make the message visible.

As this industry changes, it is important for its photographers to change and innovate. Thanks to the internet, it has never been easier and cheaper to have images seen. Yet hardly anyone has used the medium at its full potential. Granted, it might not pay as well as a double page in Time magazine but it will certainly be seen by many more people worldwide. And, isn’t it what photojournalism is all about ?

Posted in HOLGA, photojournalism, lensbabies, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »

July 19, 2007 by pmelcher.

There is a computer term to describe the management of lists. It is called LIFO, for Last In First Out. It should be a photo agency term too. What used to be the field of editorial photography is now becoming a standard in all websites, be it commercial stock to royalty free.

The idea is quite simple. The last image added is the first one scene. The thinking behind it also quite simple, however maybe not correct. The latest images added are the most interesting and thus should be the most visible. It is, again,  a pale rendition of the retail space where new items are the hot items. However, is that necessarily true ?

Photography is after all a timeless activity. A lot of photo agencies have very valuable images that are timeless and sell over and over again. But, for some odd retail space reasoning, they are put in the back shelves, only to be found by those who happen they exists.

New is always considered better in websites these days. The most recent the image, the better it is. At least according to the way website function. But new has only that quality to it: it is new. We are brainwashed by marketing that we apply the same tired old tricks to images. “Come see the latest images” is  the photo agency equivalent of “come see the brand new Ford”. I know of a lot of older Ford cars that are much better than the recent ones.

Can images be treated the same way ? New has the value of “never published”. But then again, some of the older images have the same status. Shouldn’t a search engine do a filtered search on “never published” instead of “latest images” ? A free idea for those in the lack of.

LIFO should be changed to BIFO ( Best In First Out).

Posted in Search, editorial | Print | 2 Comments »

July 16, 2007 by pmelcher.

No agency is an island. What we see more and more, as the market is evolving towards bipolar extremes, is small and little agencies not only shrinking in its offerings and niching, but also diminishing their client base.

There are two poles of attractions these days for image buyers, the mega libraries, offering everything under the sun ( Getty, Corbis, etc) and the hyper specialized creators . Since the mega libraries have a large offering, they also have a mega client base. The little guys, instead of trying to reach for the same client base, use the gravitational pull of the bigger guys.

A bit what we see in the retail space. You have a great product but you do not have the distribution. Therefore you give it to someone who has. Something out of the big pie is better than nothing. So, in a way, the new contributors of the large agencies are becoming like photographers, contributors. Getty distributes a myriad of smaller agencies as does Corbis.

There is nothing wrong with that, it seems, besides the fact that these little guys are feeding the beast that is killing them. There is nothing wrong with this model, because it allows the little guy to be a little bit stronger than their competition, which is the other little guy next door. And get that other little guy out of business.

And when that smart little guy gets rid of the other numerous little guy, they will become a big guy. right?

Wrong. The only one that wins, exactly like in the retail space, is the big guy who becomes even stronger, bigger and more powerful. The little guy remains little. Few if not none, have yet understood that.

Huge expenses, relative to the size of the agency, are being put into building a storefront, a distribution platform, only to make an agreement with Getty or Corbis for distribution . And then senseless marketing effort is being spend to try and attract customers away from these giants back to their platform. It is like pedaling in soft mud. It’s is useless. pointless.

Now take 5 agencies. Different offerings: one sports, one celebrity, one commercial stock, etc. You linked them together into one distribution platform and you have an extremely competitive offering. No one looses as each remain independent yet all benefit from each other. They share clients who now can select from a much wider source of images. The technology exist. The will ? not yet.

But as soon as some agencies stop thinking like local groceries stores, more preoccupied by protecting what they have instead of increasing their revenues, then whole photo system would change and the forces of gravitation might shift away from the giant gas planets to the newly formed rock based entities.

The business world is changing at a very fast pace. Original entrepreneurial thinking has never been so successful. There is presently an opportunity that no agency should miss.

Posted in corbis, getty | Print | No Comments »

July 13, 2007 by pmelcher.

Computer assisted cheating:

A very interesting entry on Cnet today about a new software that lets you find the appropriate fill in images that can fit into an original image. Beyond the obvious usage for frustrated news photographers who think there is not enough smoke or explosions, it has a great potential for creative.

One experiment used the vast Flickr image database but this would be a very add on tool to any large commercial stock databases. One sign that photography is slowly maturing.

Article here

New, free and useless:

Completely unrelated but still interesting this click-free flash animation : CNtower

Istock acquires Hulton:

Getty’s decision to put the highly lucrative Hulton Archives in Istockphoto is not just an astonishing decision, it is also a smack in the face of Corbis. Quite unknown to most people, Getty and Corbis share a lot of the same images ( see Corbis results for Hulton) from the Hulton Deutch collection after an extremely bad deal made by Corbis years ago. By pricing these images at Microstock prices, Getty is now undercutting Corbis dramatically and forcing the Bill Gates owned company to react accordingly. Will Corbis follow suit ? will they add Bettmann Archives too ?

Considering the talented team of Getty’s management, I am assuming that they strongly believe they will get back in volume what they will be loosing in price per image with this move. I am also assuming that they have already recupped the high cost of scanning all these images, because at $1 dollar an  image, this would not be a profitable move.

more info here 

Posted in flickr, corbis, getty | Print | No Comments »

July 10, 2007 by pmelcher.

While other website owners seem to spend their days looking at how many images Fotolia has or has not uploaded (who cares ?), and others become experts at playing the stock market, Brian Storm and his team have again come out with a magnificent multimedia.

If you have 10 minutes to spare in your day, and you should, take the time to step out of the photo industry soap opera and rumor mill.

This is more powerful than 10 million Live Earth concerts and any celebrities telling me what to do. This is what photography was meant to do:
click here it’s worth it

Posted in photojournalism, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »