February 6, 2011 by pmelcher.

One of the interesting aspects of the launch of The Daily this week, for those of us who are in the business of licensing images, is how to price those images.

Traditionally, an image license takes in consideration the circulation of the publication. And with  print, it is no problem. A publisher will decide how many copies to print and hope that they will all sale. Thus, the circulation is clear, cut, precise.

With an Ipad only publication, well, at first, there is no circulation. The publisher releases an issue and waits to see how many people will download it. Thus, the real circulation numbers are only known after the issue has been replaced by the new one.

So how do you price that ? Well, the best you can do is price the license based on known numbers. Those would be the ones of yesterday’s issue and hope they will be close enough.

But what if it’s a new circulation and it has no previous numbers? Do you use zero as the circulation number ? probably not.

It used to be that the publisher took all the weight of the publication cost.  By deciding how many copies to print, they would, in effect, also decide the cost of an image. Now, it is up to the licensor to partly take over that responsibility. They have to try and figure out the licensing value of their images based on an educated guess. There is a good chance they will always be too low.

In a perfect world, the image license fee should be decided at the end of the day ( for a newspaper, like The Daily) based on how many downloads. It would be possible if the publisher would share these numbers with you. While they are more than willing to do so  with advertisers, they will not with image suppliers.

An ” intelligent image” could report back to you and automatically bill your clients based on downloads, at the end of the day. It would be fair, especially if your image( s) where instrumental in provoking a spike. Otherwise,  you are left to play a guessing game with a blindfold.

Slightly related :

Like everyone else, I have been following the events in Egypt. It is hard to say, and maybe see, the image or images that will remain as icons of this movement. However, they are plenty going around. However, one unnerving  item is Time Magazine. On their website ( and maybe in print), they have there sideshow by Dominic Nahr from Magnum. While the image are good, there are two main aspects that are wrong:

- One : they call it “Time Exclusive photos: The Clashes in Cairo.” . This make it sound like they are the only ones to have covered this event. Which clearly they are not.What is exclusive is that you will only see Dominic Nahr’s coverage of the clashes on Time.com.

Not sure if anyone cares.

- Two: The whole page has to refresh every time you switch to the next photograph. You would think that for a publication own by Time Warner, we could expect a better site design than one done by a 11 year old in 1994. Come on people, it’s 2011!!

Posted in magazine, license, Canada, technology, E Reader, multimedia, newspaper, finance, slideshow, photojournalism, TIME, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »

January 24, 2011 by pmelcher.

It’s started when Royalty Free wanted to find an easier way to price images. Someone, somewhere ( history forget his/her name) suggested that images should be priced according to size. A bit like a bag of potatoes .  The bigger size, the more expensive.

Back in the late 90’s, that made perfect sense. To use a photograph in print, you needed a bigger size than for web usage.  And , since websites were poor experiments, that was fine.

Fast forward to 2011 :  Microstock , the irreverent child of Royalty free, has full embraced it’s elder’s pricing structure. A small file size is cheaper than a big file size.

That would be fine if the market had remained the same; But , it hasn’t.  With more than 14 million units sold in 2010, the Ipad has kicked wide open the door of publishing. At the recent CES ( Consumer Electronic Show), no less than 80 different tablets were announced. In the mean time, print is slowly choking under the combined weight of its rising costs and  growing irrelevancy. Websites are now starting to suck all available resources, including budgets.

In other words, the market for images is going 100 % digital. Which means that publishers, advertisers, designers need much smaller files. For example, an Ipad image needs to be 1028 pixels on the large size, at 130 dpi. No more. That means the markets is going to need more and more of the smaller files. You know, those that cost the less. To the point that the larger files, the XXL’s, might never get sold anymore.

Since Royalty Free ( microstock included) has made the wrong assumption that smaller image files were always going to be a marginal market, they are entering this new market totally under priced. They are practicality giving away the small file sizes in order to attract visitors.

If they were smart, they should reverse their pricing scheme. Make the large files the cheapest. But, for various reasons, that would never work. One of the most obvious reason would be that no one would understand why bigger is cheaper ( or smaller is more expensive). That is just not the way we think.

The second irony  is that cameras are also producing larger and larger files  while the market for images needs smaller and smaller files.

It is just a mistake to beleive that only editorial images are being affected by this shift to digital usage. Advertising will follow where publishers are going , as well as brochures, books and practically  everything else. Even billboards will end up fully digital. It is just a question of time.

The challenge of the next five years will be how to re invent the pricing structure in order to take full adavantage of this new demand, not only in pricing but delivery methods.

Posted in technology, commercial stock, E Reader, magazine, license, Royalty free, editorial, finance, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

December 2, 2010 by pmelcher.

Here’s to the future of photography : yes the Ipad has launched and yes it seems that it is successful. The era of the tablet/ Ereader/touch computing, whatever you want to call it is upon us.

And yes, publishers from all over the world are jumping on the bandwagon and releasing their Ipad editions in droves. Most do not make more effort than just scanning their print edition into an electronic version. A repackaging of some sort. Others will add a bonus section here and there in order to make it appear like a new product. Others, finally,  have put a lot of thinking into what can be done and try to innovate.

And all that is fine, except for one important item. None will pay for additional usage of your images. Somehow, they have all decided that using your images on an Ipad should not be considered for an extra license fee . No, they say, it’s an” exact replica” (ya, right) so go to hell with your license fees. Or, they pay peanuts, (because peanuts is what we eat, us little photo squirrel) , saying, “well it is an experiment..we are not sure we will continue”. Ya right ( again). Didn’t we hear that before, at the emergence of websites ?

Here’s the deal : one one side, you have multi-million dollar companies who sit in 80 stories high skyscrapers and on the other, a multitude of mom and pop size store crammed in a closet space in  a shady back alley. The big guys come around and say; “we are going to launch a new product which our studies show will generate billions in new revenues for us and we would like you to give us a discount”.

C’mom, what do you say to such a juicy deal like that ?

The reaction ? well, for the first time in it’s history, photo agencies , who are fierce competitors, are talking to each other. They are even creating associations in order to stand united and strong against corporate bullying. Here, in the United States, EPAG ( Editorial Photo Agency Guild) was created and going strong. In Australia, a coordination is coming together, in Italy, a new association is born, the A.F.N.A. (Agenzie Fotografiche Nazionali Associate ). More will appear.

It is not the Spring of a new revolution and you will not see photo agencies walking the streets hand in hand waving the flag of freedom and liberty. It is just a reaction to what is perceived as unfair business practices. It is important for the future of photography, because  E readers will become the most used platform to read magazines in the very near future And thus, the majority of images used in an editorial manner will reside on these platform. If  photographs used on E Readers are not being compensated fairly then there is no future for editorial photography.

Zero, nada. None. Think about it: Website don’t pay enough and print will no longer be able to afford current prices.

So yes, as a platform, the Tablet/ Ereader/ touch computers show a lot of promise for photography. However, right now, it could be its doom.

( For those who like to know what to do, please contact your local organization or create your own. Do not fight the process but work with editors to find a fair and balanced agreement where images get rewarded their fair due. Engage in constructive dialogue. If anything, images used in Ipad should be compensated at the same level as if used in Print)

Posted in technology, E Reader, Corpocrates, magazine, celebrity, transaction, photojournalism, license, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »

July 19, 2010 by pmelcher.

Man I love what this guy has to say :

Posted in license, multimedia, Search, TIME, celebrity, magazine, E Reader, commercial stock, technology, web 2.0, prosumer, news, corbis, getty, editorial, transaction, flickr, photojournalism, finance, Microstock | Print | 3 Comments »

July 12, 2010 by pmelcher.

 The Long love affair between photography and Media is over .

Because the editorial world is replacing experience photo editors with journalistic background for inexperience pixel pushers that are ordered to select the cheapest images, regardless of quality, they are opening the visual airways for steep competition.

A bit like traditional Royalty free opened the door to microstock by increasing prices and leaving a huge marketplace vacuum, magazines ( web or print) are leaving a wide open space for quality photography.  Because they are still thinking terms of gatekeepers, they beleive the audience will follow them into whatever they publish. Problem is, this is the internet : the many to many market. They are no gatekeepers anymore, just influencers.

More and more, out of frustration to see great images go unpublished, photo agencies or photographers are doing their own editing/publishing. Zuma Press, with their Double Truck magazine was one of the first ones. Probably fed up of not seeing great images published in their rightful format, aka double page, they proceeded in doing their own magazine, featuring the images they liked the most. Is it a runaway success ? No. But it was a first.

Since then, a lot of photo agencies have launched their own blogs, featuring their own images, since their traditional clients would not use them. Not because they were bad, but because they were unwilling to pay a decent price for them. Some of these blogs, like X17online.com have become leaders in their markets. Photo agencies like VII have also launched  their own magazine, also in frustration of never seeing some of their great coverage go unpublished.

The result ? The public now has access to other sources of photography, previously hidden from them. They can see and compare. Gatekeepers are being challenged by influencers.

The smart publisher are the ones that will quickly realize and capitalize on this. Drop the most traveled image rat race for the lesser traveled side road of quality.

Here’s the deal : A well designed magazine with high quality- exclusive content will have no problem raising a successful paywall. The same way as people have no problem paying for very expensive Jewelry at Tiffany’s, or Cartier, they have no problem for paying for something they feel has value. They will not never pay for same middle of the road content. It’s not Pay walls that do not work, it’s what it’s what is behind them.

So here is the evolution of photography : More and more, creators of photography , disappointed of not seeing their best work being published, mostly because of unbreakable subscription deals made with mass providers, will start self publishing . More and more, those precious eyeballs that all want to retain so desperately will start navigating elsewhere and spread their attention span to other non mainstream sites.

The tide will be even greater when a critical mass will start understanding that they are not seeing the best , but the cheapest . Photographers will start combining their content with others and create their own outlets. Photo Agencies will gain momentum in their self publishing efforts. The media outlets that have spend millions to raise and maintain their brands will start being eclipsed by a guy and a computer.

Don’t think it can work ? Wireimage has been very succesful for many years in charging consumers to have access to medium  access to their images. No downloads, no editorial, just access to bigger thumbnails. Strangely, that model has never been replicated while their is no reason why it wouldn’t work elsewhere.

Editorial publishers are dropping the ball on their suppliers and forcing them to become their own competition. Or go out of business. Does that make any sense ? All that while lying to their clients. How long will that last ? Even with the advent of Ipads and E readers, this will not continue long.

Maybe the fall of Newsweek, and right behind, Time magazine, has a lot to do with that. If you have paid attention, you would have seen that in the last 4-5 years, they have reduced their image content to everything Getty/AP/Reuters in order to save money. Result ? Same images you all have seen on the web, but a week later…And then they wonder why people don’t purchase them anymore. They have laid off so many great photo editors that there is no way they can even find a great image anymore. In other words, they have both killed what had made them successful.

In other words, if photography is in crisis right now, its because Media is dying of a long slow agonizing death and trying the bring it along. Trouble is, photography can live without Media, not the opposite. These times are about to show it.

Posted in celebrity, magazine, Newsweek, E Reader, license, TIME, news, editorial, photojournalism, web 2.0, getty | Print | No Comments »

June 17, 2010 by pmelcher.

Today, in honor of Getty images being the first one to launch a totally useless Ipad App ( I thought these things were reserved to Corbis ), we will share with you a few of the expressions heard or read, invented by corpocrates ( or wannabees) wanting to sound intelligent,  that are supposed to replace the words “Photography” or “Photographer” :

“Compiled  using lens-based imaging technologies” ( That is a photograph)
“Digitally captured  visual wavelength ” ( Ditto)
“Data Sensor light recorder. ” (DSLR)

or a variation..
“Digital light sensitive recorder”.(DSLR)

“Content provider” ( that’s a photographer. Expression coined by the suits at Corbis)

“Legacy data” ( That is mostly used by Digital Asset Management companies)

“Digital asset” ( Another one coined by the Seattle suits)
‘Photography’ for me,” he wrote, “denotes a wide range of imaging practices … dialectically enmeshed with the construction of practical reality
“sight machine” for the coalescence of imaging devices and their data that digital technology has permitted. ( this one is special to me)

“manufacturer of digital files ” ( that is also for photographers or photo agencies)

Why is Getty Images Ipad useless you may still ask. Well, because the Ipad was designed to have the best browsing experience, thus allowing anyone to use the website perfectly well. Of course, you can’t shake it to get a random search like their app does, but I am not sure that is a very demanded tool. I am glad you asked.

Now, an I- “Pad,Phone, Pod ” that could randomly find expertly pseudo complicated expression to replace “photograph” or “photographer’, that would be really cool, no ?

Posted in E Reader, technology, web 2.0, corbis, getty | Print | No Comments »

May 28, 2010 by pmelcher.

Photography, like most industries affected by a center of gravity shift to digital, has experienced more than a migration from film to data packets. One of the most fundamental shift, however,  is how the decision process moved from quality of content to cost. Let me explain:

For a long time, the key decision in purchasing a license for any photograph had been it’s quality, it’s relevance to the intended usage. Sometimes, the photograph even outperformed its intended use, it was so good.  Cost, because it was perceived as a tool of value, was not an issue. Magazines had absolutely no problem in spending a lot of money to send photographers around the world and back in order to get the best images.

In fact, a lot of the magazines’ competition was done on newsstands with whom had the best cover. It was a badge of honor.

As images became easier and cheaper to transport thanks to falling memory prices as well as more readily available and cheaper bandwidth, the prices also started to drop. The cameras, the lens, the post processing, the traveling certainly did not drop. Just the cost of getting an image form A to B. Somehow, however, the belief that digital was cheaper to produce took root and, like a bad venom, infected  the whole industry.

Getting the best photographer to the location suddenly did not become a necessity. Getting the images faster took over. The best images was replaced by the fastest. Let’s just pick a photographer that is there already and get those images in. Assignment no longer included transportation to and fro. That lasted for a while as the still high cost of technology paired with the difficult technological learning curve kept the competition to a select few. However, that did not last long. Cost of equipment as well as it’s ease of use quickly lowered, allowing more and more to enter the competition for the fastest image.

Since it is impossible to transmit an image before it is taken, the competition hit a wall where everyone found themselves at the same level, transmitting as fast. So what happened ? prices dropped. The competition, as well as the usage decision, shifted again, this time to the cheapest.

Today, this is where we are : Decisions are no longer made on the quality of content but on its cost. It really doesn’t matter if your the next Cartier-Bresson, if you are too expensive, you won’t get published. If the photo budget is already spend on two or three subscriptions to photo agencies and your images are not part of the “feed”, forget it. You might as well go fishing. They will like your images, they just won’t use them.

What magazine readership do not see, is that they are paying to read publications that do not show them the best pictures but rather the cheapest. It is a very deceptive procedure. Don’t magazine attract your attention by the promise of delivering what they consider the best ?  Yet, as far as photography is concerned, they don’t. The rule has become to fit the image purchasing process within a pre-established budget. No longer do editors beleive that great images can boost readership. Instead, they beleive cheaper images will save them from oblivion.

How long would you continue to go to your favorite restaurant once you knew that they didn’t even try to purchase better product but just the cheapest ? This reminds us of those houses build with cheap dry wall imported from China that eventually made everyone badly sick. Sure, they were cheaper, and yes, cheap photography is not bad for your health. At least, not that we know of.

Photographs have a better chance to be published these days if they are cheap, not if they are good.

It is sad. Sad because there a great images being shot everyday that will never, never be seen because of this dictatorship of the wallet. Sad, because readers are being lied to by this money censorship. Sad because it is helping no one.

As magazine or website publishers continue to think in terms of broadcasting (One to many), our world is changing to social (many to many). Consumers are quickly evolving from passive participants to active contributors. As this migration is deepening, more will search for their own sources of photography that they will in turn grab and share. They will start invading the publishing world with images that they like rather than those that are being force fed to them by penny-pincher corpocrates. They will deconstruct and break the barriers of the conglomerate publishing world in order to resubmit their own vision of the world. It is already going in the world of text journalism, it will not be long before photography gets swept in.

It is no longer a viable proposition to beleive that image consumers will continue to just passively absorb cheap content. The barriers  that kept the suppliers of images invisible to the readers  have fallen, permitting them, for the first time in the history of photography, an unprecedented access to the source. They can now see where publications get their content from and make their own decisions. Ironically, as publications divert more and more what they use to the cheapest, the rest of the production become more and more visible, making their money censorship more obvious.

Obviously,  this uncomfortable situation is not going to last long. Photographers and photo agencies will soon be forced into finding lucrative ways to supply their images directly to the readers, by-passing those publishers who have refused to use them for monetary reasons. Some already do.

There is another revolution lurking here and once again, the photography world will never be the same.

Posted in copyright, license, multimedia, celebrity, magazine, E Reader, technology, newspaper, web 2.0, transaction, editorial, news, finance, wire service, prosumer, photojournalism, getty | Print | 1 Comment »

May 20, 2010 by pmelcher.

Sports Illustrated seems to be highly dedicated in making their publication valid in the digital age. They have just released a  video of what it will look like on the new HTML 5 browsers soon available. There is no mention if this will be behind a paywall but it certainly starting to look enticing enough. Since it is all in HTML 5, it is also very portable ( think different tablet manufacturers, not just Ipad) thus  widely visible. The very near future looks really good :

Posted in magazine, technology, E Reader, copyright, photojournalism, editorial, slideshow, news | Print | No Comments »

March 27, 2010 by pmelcher.

One morning you wake up, and it’s facing you.  Everything that you took for granted and made your life so comfortable is suddenly gone. Probably forever. Welcome to the economy of fear.

What use to be a cozy job, where every day brought you  a new batch of interesting challenges, has now become days of uncertainty and doubt. From photo editors who are not sure how long they will keep their jobs, to staff newspaper photojournalists who could be shooting their last images, everyone is living in fear.

In the last decade, the photo industry has pivoted from an economy of wealth and abundance to an economy of fear. It is not so much about talent, creativity or effectiveness anymore, as it is about who can scare the other into submission.

Pricing for example, is not based on usage, or talent, or even level of professionalism anymore. It is based on the fear that someone else could price it lower and thus take the sale.  Whether assignment or stock, images are priced on how high it can go before loosing the job to the competition . And these days, that is not high. Photo editors negotiate with the “I can get it cheaper” stick in one hand, forcing photographers, or agencies, into fearful submission. There is little conversation about quality anymore.

It is not just about pricing, however. The fear factor enters all level of conversations. Companies like Getty approach and retain photographers also on fear. If you do not work with Getty, they claim, your images will never be published. If you work for a competing agency, you will never work for Getty, and so on. A bit like Wal-Mart ” how to handle a supplier” handbook of  “we own the market, we own you”. Some suppliers of Wal Mart, by the way, have been forced into bankruptcy, because they were forced into unsustainable low pricing.

It’s the fear of the other. Stock shooters fear the ever growing crowd of microstockers, Photo agencies fear other photo agencies ,wedding photographer fear other low cost wedding photographers, Photo editors fear their bosses, and publishers fear the future.

On top of that, everyone ( well almost) fear the passing of the Orphan Works bill, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Government, new technology and in some cases, even their car.

Recently, an image matching company released a report saying that 8 out of 10 images appearing on commercial Web sites are being used “non-legitimately”, offering their service as a solution.  Fear as a selling strategy. If I scare you enough, will you buy my product ?

When the future is uncertain, like it currently is  in the photo world and elsewhere, it is natural  to be worried and scared. No one can seriously say today that they know for sure where will they will be in 5 years from now. However, for companies, or individuals, to capitalize on that fear, to use is as a primary bargaining tool is despicable. It is like pushing down on the head of a drowning person with the promise of saving them. A false promise.

Photography does not live well under fear. Creativity gets lost and conformity becomes the norm. Snake charmers invade the land with their make-believe magic potions, orators take to the podiums to agitate  more fear and offer their security blankets ( for a fee). Opportunists see opportunities to make deals that defy reason as they know how fear is a powerful logic sedative.

We are going to see a lot of decisions driven by fear this year and next, mostly creating poor results.  A lot of people jumping to the cliff in order to avoid the fire. But mostly, we will see a lot of fear smellers take advantage of the situation.

Posted in license, technology, commercial stock, E Reader, newspaper, prosumer, getty, transaction, finance, photojournalism, Microstock | Print | 2 Comments »

March 2, 2010 by pmelcher.

How to iTablet the Ipad ? Microsoft is about to reveal something that could bypass the need to carry yet another big thing just to read magazine, newspapers or surf websites. Called the “Mobile Surface” and only to be shown to employees for now (must be extra beta), it is a small portable box that will project an interactive image on any surface.

Look :

 Of course, there is a lot of questions left. Mainly, will it not crash. However, this technology could be integrated in your cellphone ( the smart kind) and, while keeping the size small, allow for higher viewing real estate.  One will have to see how editing an image on a blue table will work out, or keeping your email private in an airplane.

This is however a very interesting development for E-publishing  ( just think of a 3D video or immersive photography) as well as computing in general. More stuff here

Posted in technology, lens, Newsweek, E Reader, magazine, multimedia, slideshow, photojournalism, web 2.0, newspaper, editorial | Print | 1 Comment »