March 2, 2010 by pmelcher.

You know there is a problem when a company selling you a service treats you with superiority and disdain. Somewhere in the sale cycle, someone hates the fact that they should be at the client service and not the opposite.

Take software solution companies, for example. They usually work in a vacuum creating  some software solution that they decide is very cool and once finished, look around to see if there is a market for it. There’s usually a market for everything. Once they find the market, they approach the “non software” people in a attempt to sell it. Because they usually fall on non technical people who have no clue on how difficult it has been to design and implement what they are trying to sell, they are quickly branded as “idiots”, “retards”, or “useless”. Nevertheless, the software company still needs to make money to cover the costs of creating and maintaining there operation. So they reluctantly continue  selling their product/services to the “incompetent idiots” that are not understanding the genius behind the applications they are buying.

The software companies stay very very close to their software peers in order to compensate and gather as much praises from them. After all, a praises from a peer is so much better than one from your clients. They couldn’t care less what their customers say about their products and what improvement they would like to see, as they see them as inferior that are only there to pay their bills. Like monkeys trying to explain to you how to operate your car. They come to really disdain this relationship whereby they have to take money from “idiots”. All they want is to be recognized as the new Google, get millions in funding and be admired by other programmers.

There is no love in a application creator/client relationship. We have seen it and we still see it in the photo industry. Since going digital, and especially after the billions spend by Yahoo for Flickr, a little flock of software companies, mostly start ups, have knocked on the doors of this market. And reluctantly did so. From database management to image recognition, they have found and develop some interesting tools for this market. However, they disdain the fact that they have to rely on poorly technology educated photo people to make a living.

What are the signs of such companies ? Well, first and foremost, very poor communications skills. Do not return emails or phone calls or take a very, very long time doing so. Would you answer quickly to someone you despise ? They certainly don’t.

Poor or in existent sales team. Usually handled by an entry level person that has absolutely no power. He/she is obviously at the bottom of the pole at this company, and while usually very nice and understanding, a complete waste of time to communicate with.

No training or well thought out documentation. You either get it, like they do, or you are a complete moron that wouldn’t even understand a step by step instruction, so why bother ?

They want you to come to them. Since their creation is so genius, you should be begging to use it, not the opposite.

Finally, and probably the most important, they turn their creation into a “Solution”. Although they have develop an application that they thought was challenging enough to do, they will come to you as if they have found a cure to your problems. They will take the high road and declare: “we are here to save photography”. They take a superior stand to any seasoned professional and explain with a condescending air of ultimate superiority that they know what is wrong with the Photography business and that their software/app/service is THE solution. All like little messiah, they have a greater purpose than selling their companies services. They are here to save you from yourselves.

Let’s be realist. They are all in it to make money. Lots and lots of money. Nothing more and nothing less. They hide there real intention behind a mask of fake benevolence. Most have this annoying unsaid little scheme that if they can corner the market, they can turn around, raise prices, and get a choking stronghold on this universe. In the mean time they rack millions in investors money with this promise.

While technology is certainly a tool for growth, it is also full of the worst snake oil sellers one can ever meet. Their efforts are not as pure as they say. All of them are trying to make a profit , and as large as possible. So next time they ring at your door, think about their business model. How do they intend to get rich on your back. Sure, everyone deserves to be paid. But, is it worth it for your business ?.How tied up will you find yourself if they succeed in cornering the market ? Who will benefit the most ? You, or them ?

Most importantly, if they then do not respond promptly to your emails ( remember, these guys are on their computers/ smartphones 24/7 ), then you know that they could care less about you. And it’s time to move on.

Posted in technology, idee, picturemaxx, gumgum, commercial stock, copyright, license, finance, photoshop, flickr, web 2.0, transaction | Print | No Comments »

March 3, 2009 by pmelcher.

“Copyright owners tend to focus on the aspect they see of piracy, which is the lost revenue. They therefore think what drives users to do it is the desire to get something for free. But iTunes shows that people will pay for stuff online, if you make it easy. A significant component of piracy is simply that it offers a better user experience.” From Paul Graham_Why TV Lost_

Al thought written more for music and video, the above quote is true for photography. The next big step is figuring how to monetize the huge demand for visuals while avoiding piracy. No numbers officially exists on how many images are “stolen” either by a simple “copy paste”, “save as” or database hacking.  Agencies, as well as independent photographers will never admit publicly on how many of their images are floating around without being properly licensed.

A few solutions are slowly emerging but they offer more a reaction rather than an offer. Piscout, for example, will help you after the fact as well as Tineye.com. Imagespan, Gumgum, Piccapp, and others to come, offer an option, but not a solution. Most  copyrights owners are still hoping that metadata will save them, forgetting so conveniently that it can be so easily stripped away. Finally, organizations like the dying Plus Coalition are trying to  standardize archaic and complicated options in the ultimate hope to freeze in time antiquated models. None are making licensing easier.

Rather, by proliferating in multiple directions, these companies (who do not own any copyright) confuse and distract the marketplace even more. What we need is to encourage consumption, not add more leashes. And, as such, stop making our images so incredibly difficult and complicated to purchase. The microstock sector, taking cues from the traditional RF sector, has succesfully understood how important it is to empower the customer with a simple, smooth process.

That is the next evolution of our industry.

Posted in idee, copyright, Plus, technology, commercial stock, gumgum, license, IPTC, law, Royalty free, transaction, finance, keyword, prosumer, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

October 3, 2008 by pmelcher.

One idea, three companies. On the trail of the aggressive Gumgum and the smart Picapp, comes Fotoglif. The Canada base start up offers the same time of service as the two others, while it is not clear how. It is free to register, free to post. Somewhere in the equation, there are ads which are supposed to be shared 50/50 with the creator of the image. Or the agency. Since I do not see ads on the image below, I presume its the ads on their website. Nevertheless, Getty, Reuters and Splashnews have already submitted their images and more are to come.

Once again, like Picapp or the deceiving GumGum, it is nothing more than a technology platform aggregating images they do not own or create for the sake of  worldwide bloggers. Not sure who needs that. Agencies can certainly create the same technology internally ( surprised that Getty hasn’t already launched it) and bloggers couldn’t care less if they steal or not, as most of them use the “fair use” to get away with plainly stealing.

Finally, licensing images is a dying industry in its current form. It doesn’t make much sense for third party companies to concentrate on such a limited and cumbersome  model and picking up little scrap of pennies. It is going to soon obvious that there is no room for technology companies to wiggle in, not in between the agencies and their clients at least.

Fotoglif should soon come out with a press release which should help us know more about their plan .

Posted in celebrity, technology, gumgum, license, Search, editorial, web 2.0, getty | Print | No Comments »

September 22, 2008 by pmelcher.

A recent press release just popped up that had me twisting. It is about blog provider PicApp and aggregator Newscom. The deal they announced is quite simple. Newscom will provide content to Picapp to license with their website tool. Simple.

Yet the whole thing doesn’t make sense. Neither company own the photograph they license. They are just both technology platform. yet, they make an agreement to license images they do not own. What is up with photo agencies these days that they have to go through two different platform to reach their clients? Let see. Newscom takes anywhere from 30 to 50% of all sales. Picapp takes an additional 20% or more of all ads placed on images that are used. What is left for the agency? Even better, what is left to the photographers ?

If one understands that the Picapp model is ad supported, one has to realize it would take a lot of the same image to be published before any substantial revenue be made. After all these commission paid, there will not be much left besides pennies. Why would anyone in their right mind participate ? It makes sense for Picapp, obviously and it does, a bit less for Newscom. But for an agency, it makes no sense at all.

Any agency can create a system like Picapp or GumGum and integrate it within their website. Why go through third party providers that have really nothing to offer ? Because photo agencies are technology challenged. Same with Newscom. Why would any agency join a third party aggregator? Why not create an agency owned portal that would cut off the middle man. No need to pay anyone any percentage. It is about time that photo agency stop being thrown around by the incoming waves of innovation and take their destiny into their own hands. Technology is not a barrier but a bridge to your customers. It should not and never be control by anyone besides yourselves.

It is time to stop being passive and be proactive. The solutions are simple and easy to implement. lets do it.

Update: Apparently Newscom has also sign a deal with Gumgum, the company that calls photography “assets” .Press release here.

Posted in magazine, technology, gumgum, license, Search, editorial, web 2.0, No sense, news | Print | No Comments »

July 7, 2008 by pmelcher.

Even in a world of quirky names, content continues to rule. Picapp, the source for free legal images for blogs, has just signed up celebrity news agency Splashnews as a new provider. Here’s the deal : 2 companies, one similar idea. How to license images to the high volume community of bloggers worldwide ( 6 billion , I believe). Also, how to license images without these images ever leaving the server, thus avoiding illegal duplication. ( Orphan work anyone ?)

Historically, Picapp was the first to launch, with a revenue sharing deal that made advertising the only source of revenue. GumGum, not far behind, launches with a similar idea. However, the user here has a choice of adverting or paying a pay per view fee.

But the business model is not enough to grab attention, you need the right content. Again, two strategies : Picapp leverages its existing relationship through Picscout and draws the big guns ( i.e Getty). Gumgum, in order to outsmart them and after looking at the blogosphere, goes for entertainment. After all, the celebrity obsessed blogs are not only the most active, but also the biggest consumers of photos. What would be a celebrity site with no images, right ? They quickly signed Pacific Coast news, Splash news and Starmax. The show can begin. And it did. While Picapp runs around making deals with blog publishers and refine their offering ( ie multi size images, hidden Picguy, etc), GumGum seems to be satisfied with their offering.And it seemed to work.

But Picapp is no dumdum. They just signed Splashnews too, realizing they where the biggest money making content provider of Gumgum. Ouch ! The result will soon be felt. One has vast offering, from sports to paparazzi celeb, while the other seems stuck in the muck. Same technology and very similar business model. Who do you think will win?

At the end, it is always the same result. Technology is not an answer in itself, it is just a pipe. You can have the greatest system in the world, if you do not have the content, you die. Think Betamax or more recently, Blu Ray. Geeks are the worst managers of their own technology as they always, always make the same mistake in believing it can overcome everything.  It can’t.

Posted in technology, gumgum, Pacific coast news, idee, license, transaction, finance, web 2.0, editorial | Print | No Comments »

June 14, 2008 by pmelcher.

$54,000 ?… “Advertisers pay as much as $54,000 to run a one-day ad package on the site.” says the LA times article on Perezhilton.com. It is already a known fact that some agencies now license images to that site, in full knowledge of its past infringement and the current lawsuit. What is less known is that those images are licensed for a mere $50 or so. Some of these agencies are probably also screaming about microstock and  its low balling prices.

PerezHilton.com is not a small one person operation anymore. It is well staffed. It receives 7 million pages/view a day. A day ! that is 7 times the amount of readers that people magazine gets in a week. With a licensing system like gumgum.com, at .20 cents per one thousand views, that would be $1,400 per day/per image.

Yet, they pay much, much less for images.

When are photo agencies going to wake up ? Perezhilton.com, without photographs would not and could not exist. It is all about displaying photographs. Yet, they set the pricing rules and not the opposite. It is insanity.

Most say, “it’s for the publicity”.” If you sale an image to PerezHilton.com, it sells better elsewhere”. Why not pay them to publish your image, if you really believe that ? at $54,000 a pop.

There is no excuses for these ridiculous prices besides professional ineptitude. It is not the market’s fault if prices are falling, it is due to the incompetence of certain and their misunderstanding of the laws of pricing. It is due to the stubborn idiocy of some that believe that  a sale, any sale is better than nothing. No other businesses function like that. Imagine going to Tiffany’s and saying,”I will only pay $50 for that diamond necklace because, after all, I know a lot of people and when I wear it, I will tell them I got it from you”

Nike, Addidas, Canon, Sony, practically any company make you pay to advertise their product. People buy T-shirts with the brand displayed in big letters. Cameras have logo on them. It is almost impossible these days to leave a store with a product that does not carry the manufacturers name in big on it. And no one gives a break.

No one, no one goes to a clothing store and say: “I will wear your T-shirt that says Nike on it if you sell it to me for $1..”.Not even those that license images for around $50.

Yet, the photo agency world does it. At least some of its players.

At $54,000 a day on advertising, one should think PerezHilton.com can pay more than $50 an image. Especially when the site does nothing else but publish images.

Mario Lavandeira, the real person behind the site, “debuted a clothing line, sold exclusively at retail chain Hot Topic, last week. He also appears in a summer movie, “Another Gay Sequel: Gays Gone Wild,” hosts a syndicated radio show, is writing a book on celebrities and is in talks to start his own record label. “I want my own little empire.” ”

And he will succeed thanks to the helpful hands of some challengingly impaired photo agency people ( you know who you are)  who think they are outsmarting their competition by underselling. Or, hopefully, he will have to use the money he saved to pay for his blatant copyright  infringement of X17 and INF images.

Full article on Perezhilton.com here

Posted in celebrity, magazine, gumgum, license, transaction, news, law, editorial, getty | Print | No Comments »

April 24, 2008 by pmelcher.

Image details: Pope Benedict XVI Celebrates Mass At Yankee Stadium served by picapp.com

It is a blessing these days to see a company that grows by listening to its criticism. Ad supported licensing company Picapp has recently revamped its site and has made some good improvements.  First and foremost, you can decide if you want or not that little pop up figure they call picaboo. You can also choose the size of the image you want to post and what type of an animation.

Thus after selecting your image, you can select between a goofy interface to a more serious one. What the people needed.

A quick down and dirty Alexa ranking shows Picapp  ahead of competitor Gumgum in traffic. No big surprise as they started with a big bang using the Getty  trampoline.

The real question is why did neither of these companies have open their service to individuals.

Sure, it is nice to have access to images from pros, but what about the huge pool of amateurs. This licensing model would much better serve the Flickr community than anyone else. After all, it would be a great replacement to the useless Creative Common scheme. ” here, use my picture for free, in exchange for which I get a cut on ads”. Fair enough, no ?

But neither Flickr, Photobucket, Smugmug and other mass photo storage platform will allow their content to be duplicate on either the Picapp or Gumgum server. The technology has to come to them. And that is the biggest shortcoming of both companies. Because their technology is neither proprietary neither that hard to create.

The second short coming is that neither offer the publisher any income for posting these images. Even the slightest cut would make either company immediately attractive. Imagine, get paid to post images !! Someone is bound to do it.

I can foresee very soon many  agencies offering the same type of licensing model from within their own site, bypassing the “Picgum” middle man.It would not be a problem for Flickr to add that option too. So it leaves both companies in breathless race to create enough critical mass of content to become indispensable. One, Picapp, has concentrate on overall volume, while the other, GumGum, seems to concentrate on just celebrity oriented content.

Let’s see what the future brings them. Either way, a very interesting race to watch.

Photo Licensing by GumGum | © PacificCoastNews

Posted in celebrity, copyright, alexa, technology, gumgum, license, keyword, filter, editorial, flickr, prosumer, web 2.0, getty | Print | No Comments »

April 16, 2008 by pmelcher.

I did not pick this image. I actually have no idea what it will be before I publish this entry. Why ? because it is a sort of semi “intelligent” algorithm in the background that will do it for me. A bit like Google ads scans a whole web page for keywords and post the relevant ads, this system, delivered by Dailylife.com, does the same.

It will scan the page for keywords and post the most appropriate image. Like an automated photo editor. And because it is looking thought the feeds of Reuters, GettyImages and AP, I believe, it selects from a pool of already very tightly edited images. One could also foresee a Flickr API, a bit like I did with the yahoo pipes.

I am guaranteed a good and hopefully, relevant image . This is the future of news photo editing on the web. At least for sites that do not care so much about the image and use them as an illustration of  a written report. Why pay some guy to look at a stream of pre edited  images, download one, resize it and post when the whole thing can be automated. And better yet, computers don’t whine, do not take lunch breaks, or holidays and never, never ask for a raise. So why keep a web photo editor, if only to do some “best of the week” gallery ?

Think about it:  the biggest news source of the internet has no photo editor. It is called Google news and it selects images with a similar technology. Indeed, it relies on images previously edited by pro photo editors. For now.

The dailylife link is completely free, with no uncontrolled ads, like a Picapp or a GumGum would like you to swallow. Sure , it has a link for the site itself but the same technology could easily be applied by anyone on their own site.

Finally, Dailylife.com, still in Beta, looks like an interesting destination. It seems they want to be a new Google news but put a heavy emphasis on photography and has a much better and smoother interface. More like a magazine designed for the internet, and not the opposite. Finally.

As newspapers and magazine are suffering more layouts as ad spending is weakening, most of the photo related professional are turning to the internet. However, because of its built in automation, it just seems that some of the jobs will not be recycle but ultimately replaced by machines. We will still need great pictures, thus talented photographers. Not so sure about needing photo editors.

Posted in multimedia, Search, newspaper, digg, magazine, gumgum, technology, keyword, yahoo, editorial, news, slideshow, wire service, google, photojournalism, getty | Print | 2 Comments »

March 31, 2008 by pmelcher.

While photographers trade organization are wasting their time fighting issues like the Oprhan Work bill in order the save whatever they have left, and while photo agencies association seem violently silent, the world of editorial continue its downfall.

According to Radaronline, Newsweek magazine got rid of 111 staffers last week ( didn’t even know they had that many)  and the newspapers of America had the worst ad revenue in its 50 years history, according to E&P.Worst than the 2001 slump. While analysts seem to confuse Getty going private with Getty shutting down, it is quite obvious that the tide is retreating before the big hit.

As previously written here, the editorial world will loose its dailies and weeklies in favor of the internet. It is not a question of if, but when. Monthlies will continue to thrive as long as they keep away from time sensitive news. The old ways will not continue.

While this continues, photographers and agencies will continue to bear the heaviest load as they will be asked to support the biggest part of theit cost saving initiative. A lot of companies will sink with the ships they will be trying to save. Those who will survive are those who are, today, turning to the new market. Companies, like Getty, that have understood that the future is on the Internet and create for themselves opportunities to be competitive.

Istockphoto, and other micro/midstock agencies are a good example of internet savvy photo agencies. Lean, mean, fast, cost effective companies that have learned to both cut their costs and leverage technology to its fullest. They can reach wide and far accross the world and up and down the client ladder. Others have jumped into new licensing models like Gumgum which  allows them to operate like a microstock on but a RM model.

The issue will be the relenvency of content. Currently, the internet is replicating the print editorial world. Some are adding video or multimedia, but it is still very linear. But that will change too as “born in the internet” art directors will re -invent  the web page and how we consume our news. Photographers will and agencies will have to reinvent their offering to match it.

Getty, by going private, will certainly take advantage of this new situation. They have already by acuiring Istockphoto. The celebrity photo agencies have also initiated the switch by producing videos and embrassing new licensing models. Others will probablly decide that book publishing, exhibits, grants are a better way to go and try to carve a controlled market. But, with schools already using Wikipedia and other National Geographic sites as references, how long will this market survive?

More technology based solutions are peeking out of the horizon that can help this industry  make a succesful transition. It is, a little, heartbreaking to see how slowly they are being ignored by the guardians of the old temple who beleive that saving what they have is better than growing in new markets.

Posted in copyright, license, Midstock, celebrity, magazine, Newsweek, gumgum, Zymmetrical, multimedia, TIME, editorial, news, getty, transaction, CEPIC, photojournalism, msnbc.com, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

February 28, 2008 by pmelcher.

“my first (and probably my last, unless you tell me it is a good idea) guest post :”

How did it start?Was it the 1890’s ?Photographers took pictures, pushed the edge of the envelope but could not do everything, they needed agents.In the meantime copyright came along to try and stop the exploitation of artists, there where always those with money willing to exploit the talents of an impoverished artist.Come the 1950’sAgents came along and entered into a partnership with the photographers, 50/50 or whatever, photographers owned the copyright, agents sold and kept the collections in hard chemical form, their business grew in the center of cities, large amounts of real estate holding pictures.

Pictures where sold for 1st rights, 2nd rights, 3rd rights and so on, the sellers had a firm grip on the marketplace.

Photographers if they where good made money in editorial, rights managed, it was a financial meritocracy, the best made the most. Art and creativity was king.

Agencies like Sygma, Sipa, Magnum, Rex, and stock agencies like Tony Stone all flourished, not by employing photographers but entering into partnerships with photographers.

20 years went buy and they became big business.

It’s the 1990’s along came digital, Getty and Corbis.

Digital, binary code was an astonishing revolution allowing millions of images to be stored in a box the size of a car instead of a 10 story building, on top of that images could be sent thousands on miles in a few seconds and reconstructed to the original quality thanks to jpeg compression, opportunity was knocking and along came the bankers and big business.

Getty and Corbis knew with a few million spent wisely they could dominate the industry, they started their acquisitions

Most of the agencies sold out but this was the first knife in the back for the photographers, the content creators, whilst an agency owner pocketed the $ 20 million from Corbis the photographer got nothing and in Sygmas case an assumption by Corbis that they owned the archive!!! I think the lawsuits are still continuing. What did I last hear Microsoft has $ 40 billion dollars in cash, what chance does a poor photographer stand?

Getty, owned by bankers saw an opportunity for consolidation and cost saving, they also thought “ Art” could be created on a 9-5 hour day, a salary and no incentive. They went ahead and spent $ 500,000 million dollars acquiring photo agencies.

Bill Gates, he initially just wanted art on his walls digitally, constantly changing to fit his mood, this was when big screen plasmas cost $ 30,000

These where tough times for artists, creative photographers who ideas where stolen, their percentages crushed, financial ruin approaching.

The agencies new owners drove hard bargains and percentages to the photographers, if you did not sign, get lost, plenty to fill the departing artists shoes, plenty of styles to copy.

A typical business model bulk sold content on monthly deals, sending thousands of pictures a day to clients, 1st rights, 2nd rights, 3rd rights became a thing of the past, your pictures where likely to be bundled at a $ 100,000 deal a month for 200,000 images used, you do the math !

By 2000 the creative photographer had been destroyed, art had become sterile, its becoming obvious bankers are not good for art!!!

Mix with this through the late 90’s early 2000 the growth of Google, a search engine with a bland front end. What the hell was this and it was free!!!

By 2004 we knew what Google was, an advertising agency who had managed to optimize the Internet and its revenue through click through revenues and who was being screwed the most in this, as if in a double whammy, creative photographers and newspapers, in fact anyone who published!!!

Those bulk all you can eat deals really paid of for Google with free rights in perpetuity as they displayed the web pages of most of the publications in the World, blatantly using fantastic images for free to drive click through revenue to their advertisers. The poor old content creator ( photographer) got nothing

Catching onto what was happening the media industry jumped on the Google band wagon and followed Getty’s lead and obtained pictures under tough contracts ,  New York Times, Tribune Group, Associated Newspaper, News International and almost every publishing group in the World started their own web sites, using pictures for peanuts whilst lamenting, “ We are loosing Money” they continued to make money off pictures through CPMs, “ accidentally” using pictures without paying  or sometimes purchased for ridiculously low fees.

Then came the blogs who where inspired by Googles claim to free usage under the The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 and other internet users of pictures, all claiming they where making no money, whilst the poor old photographer where having to spend money to apparently make nothing
Then came blogs and other internet users of pictures, all claiming they where making no money, whilst the poor old photographer where having to spend money to apparently make nothing.

In 2007 the World implodes, what happened to the American Dream ?

In 2008 when Getty Images sells for $ 2.4 billion with a failing business model they still do not understand what they did and their errors. Quite simply they where conducting business using digital with analog business models, they distributed full resolution digital images on a daily basis to hundreds of users, millions of asset files that could be stolen and used by everyone for free, whilst those users made millions on click through advertising revenue in perpetuity.

It all seemed hopeless and then along came GumGum, and they have suggested a solution that could get the creators back in financial control of their lives and the industry back on a firm foothold.

For in the end it’s the creators of new art that drives the marketplace but the industry must change the way it markets images in this maturing digital age. The artists have to be paid and then the flow of great marketable images will continue and big business through shared revenue will make even more money and survive.

And I suspect Bill Gates will still be rich!!!!

Paul Harris

Pacific Coast News
Celebrity Home Photos
Pacific Coast News Video
United States Head Office
BWP Media USA Incorporated

Posted in Midstock, license, multimedia, Search, newspaper, copyright, idee, Pacific coast news, gumgum, technology, magazine, keyword, google, editorial, law, news, corbis, finance, PACA, web 2.0, photojournalism, wire service, CEPIC, getty | Print | No Comments »