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 »

January 13, 2011 by pmelcher.

Strangely enough, the future of photography is in curation. With the onslaught of images invading the web in an ever growing pace, the task of finding the right image is becoming more and more arduous.

Strangely, because it is mostly in the editing department that companies are making cuts (pun intended) . The recent trend has been to let go of talented photo editors and curators, in favor of poorly designed algorithms , crowd-controlled selections or freshly out-of-internship semi-volunteers.

One would think that for website boasting millions of images, the ability to get to the right one would be a priority. But, because of the sheer volume, it has become  almost impossible to  have it done by human. While sites like Flick ( billions of images) rely on a sophisticated secret sauce of “rules” that allow certain images to bubble up, others, like microstock companies, rely on penny paid armies of humans spread out across the world. Still, the results is overwhelming.

For now, the burden is on the searchers. They are now the curators forced to push their way past irrelevant images to find the right one. It can be paralyzing .

Thus, the next step is to deliver the right image to the right person without them having  to cut through pages and pages of sub par or irrelevant images.Because the volumes have become inhuman, the solutions offered are also inhuman : Each company are intensively trying to develop their own Google like algorithm  that will  magically extract the correct result. Is it working ? no. will it work, maybe.  None, however, has thought to hire professional photo editors that could create a highly edited collection of perfectly selected images : The best of breed.

However, that would solve a lot of problems. Sure, there would be less choice. However, there would be much, much better results. See, the “Long Tail’ theory has polluted the photo industry in making people think that the more you offer, the more chance you have to be successful. A bit as if your local supermarket decided to carry everything ever made. Sure it could be appealing but could you imagine the size? Even Walmart decides what to carry and what not to carry.

Algorithms can not only be beaten, ( Google is constantly changing theirs) but they tend to create averages. Actually, they look for conformity. Thus promoting more of the same .Crowd sourcing ? well, that is also a source of average conformity. Crowd photo editing site like Fotopedia or Acquine  are a good example of the results you get :  Middle of the road images that everybody likes or that no one hates. Not really the curation that is so badly needed.

In order to different itself from the masses of camera crazy photo enthusiast, the photo industry needs to stop trying to compete with Flickr and its offering and start heavily editing its content for perfect results. It needs to reach out to those incredibly knowledgeable photo editors that the publishing industry has dropped and tell them to work their magic.

The future of photography business lies in its ability to continue to be a medium of excellence . For that, it needs to shed its goodenough branches in favor of its prettiest blossoms .

Posted in magazine, license, technology, commercial stock, Good Enough, Social Media, Search, web 2.0, editorial, Royalty free, photojournalism, flickr, prosumer, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

December 31, 2010 by pmelcher.

Feel small ?

From Gerald Holubowicz  Ebook : Sortir du Cadre (Think Wider) – Future of photojournalism.

(* for 2010)

Posted in magazine, license, technology, commercial stock, Social Media, web 2.0, prosumer, getty, corbis, editorial, flickr, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

December 24, 2010 by pmelcher.

So you lost your job at a fancy newspaper and wedding photography is not you thing. Or you spend years behind a photo desk editing others’ pictures and you want in on the action. War is too far and too dangerous. Studio is expensive and tedious. Microstock is just that : micro. what’s left ? Well you heard over and over that the big dough is in celebrity so why not try that. Well, here is a little “how to become a paparazzi” DIY kit.

First, head on to California, where most of the celebrities live, at least the most notorious ones. Once you are settle, book a tour with ” Rolling With the Paparazzi”

as the website says :

Individuals have the opportunity to run with, rather than from the paparazzi, and see celebrities they otherwise wouldn’t have access to.  The new Rolling with the Paparazzi Tour takes you all around the city by car, so that as the tips come in, you can get there much faster than by running.

In the Rolling With the Paparazzi Tour, up to three people are teamed up with Rick Mendoza, a real-life paparazzi, for the Hollywood experience of a lifetime.

 “Rolling with the Paparazzi is available as a stand-alone tour for $150 per person for up to two people and $400 for three.The Rolling with the Paparazzi Tour is offered daily, with three-hour segments beginning at 8:00AM all the way until 10:00PM.”

After those 3 hours of basic lessons, you should have  a good idea on what to do. If still unsure, you still go to You tube and hit one of the hundreds of videos of paparazzi chasing celebs.

next, you should get a map of the stars and figure out where most live and hang out. Those maps are sold in the street of hollywood and for those who are map reading impaired, tours are organized that will actually show you where everyone lives . Some websites can be useful too.

Now, you need to know who is where when. Nottaproblema : website like Just spotted.com can help you with that . Using a combination of users tips and website searches, it delivers the recent location of whom you would like to search. You can also, if you like, just follow your target star’s Twitter feed. They sometimes reveal their location real time.

Finally, once you are all set up, you need to figure out how to price your images. Here to help you is a real quote from a top Pap agency :

……………………………………………………………….
100 Non + Exclusive Pics: $500/ month ($5/pic)
100 Non Excl ONLY: $400/ month ($4/pic)
250 Non + Exclusive : $750/ month ($3/pic)
250 Non Excl Only: $500/ month ($2/pic)
Unlimited Non + Exclusive: $2000/ month
Unlimited Non Excl Only: $1500/ month

 …………………………………………………………….

Now, go ahead , make millions !!

Posted in magazine, Tweet, Waste of time, celebrity, license, editorial, No sense, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

December 9, 2010 by pmelcher.

VII to Corbis is like Magnum to OnRequest and falls into the “what where they thinking ( drinking ?)” category. But hey, who are we to judge. If they think it’s better for their business then let’s give them a cheer. Up to now VII has always been quite savvy in their business decision so let’s give them the benefit of the doubt ( we couldn’t do that with Corbis, could we ?)

But, that is not the important part of this news. What is important here is what we had wrote about a few years back. More and more, producing photo agencies, those that have a sizable roster of  producing photographers have diminished their own internal sales team in favor of agreements with mega suppliers. Earlier, we saw what is left of Gamma drop all of it’s images into the hands of  Getty images. And we could go on with other examples.

Started mostly in the RF area , extended to Commercial Stock RM collection, it is now entering the editorial. The Wal Martisation of the photo industry. Here are the reasons :

- The full  automatisation of sales is not happening, not in  RM. As much as one could take pictures for an entire life without ever talking to a customer in the RF world, the RM world still needs a lot of hands on.

- As licensing prices are dropping worldwide, maintaining a human based sales force is more costly  and less profitable.

So, what does these small to medium photo agencies do ? They engage their collection with existing large to extremely large sales platform and distributors, like Getty, Corbis or AP who already have a huge sales force . These benefit from an economy of scale that the little ones cannot afford.

Thousands upon thousands of staffers that can answer phones, negotiate, discount, read endless contracts and optimize.

It is ironic that those who are responsible for the depreciation in the value of images are actually the ones benefiting from it. The more licensing prices fall, the more the Getty’s and other will see collection coming to them for sales distribution.

Until when? Until the market will be separated in two. The creators and the distributors. Small entities of photographers regrouped in common interest units on one side and large to extra large sales platforms on the other. It’s all benefit for the sales platforms since they have no cost of production to cover in their prices. Think Istockphoto. Think Wal Mart.

So, next time you see another agency sign up for sales distribution with one of the big ones, think how much photography will become concentrated in the hands of a few that will able to set any condition they feel would benefit them. And only them.

Posted in finance, photojournalism, license, commercial stock, transaction, editorial, Royalty free, getty, corbis, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

December 5, 2010 by pmelcher.

What we haven’t found yet is the core value of a photograph.

The value of an image is calculated based on its usage . Thus making it’s association with other elements the moment when a photograph changes from being a valueless entity to becoming valuable. Those element are well known.

- Support : Whether print or digital, it has to be part of self sustaining package that is sold as such.

- Context : it has to be within a very well define context that reinforces its message.

- It has to be pre sold. It’s audience is already familiar with its content before it reaches them.

Thus one could say that what gives value to an image is what is around it.

Well, that cannot explain why a photograph on a photographer’s website has no value . That is because what surrounds the image needs to have a value, like information. Only surrounded by information does a photograph has any value. Thus the information becomes the value.

Those come in three types:

The credit : little or no value, expect if the photographer has been able to position himself as a brand.

The metadata : Increases the potential for usage of the image. The more the caption contains information, the most likely the image will get used.

The context : Whether a brand, an article or the support itself. The catalyst to value.

Thus, one could easily say that a magazine, a book, or an ad gives the photograph it’s value. Thus making charging for usage of images a counter proposition. After all, if the surrounding elements give value to an image than the photographer should pay to have their images associated to them.

However, the image does the same for it’s surrounding. It enhances, multiplies and gives value to it’s surrounding. A news article with an image is more credible. A brand advertising with an image has much more convincing power. Why ? because we instinctively believe as being true what we see. The same cannot be said for text alone.

One of the the great disadvantage of a photograph is that it has to give up its principal value in order to be sold: being seen. One cannot license an image before it has been seen thus giving away its commercial attribute before it is sold. So one has to license something else that an image can provide. It’s ability to enhance a message, to render credible, to persuade.

Thus, what we license is not the image, but the image’s ability to add a convincing power to information.

How do we change where the value of the image resides back to the image itself ?

• By making the creator of the image a strong brand. Companies spend millions of dollars and years to make this happen. It’s almost out of reach to any creator.
• By destroying the current model and making it unbelievably hard for anyone other than creators to publish photographs. Not going to happen.
• By shifting who adds value to the image. Some photo agencies have started doing this with encouraging results.
• By creating images that cannot possibly communicate with any surrounding information. They exist. They are called scoops in editorial or works of arts. They contain all the information needed and thus could not gain any value with any associated information. The only possible value that can be added is distribution. The internet has almost render that obsolete.

Thus the core value exist. It has just be abandon. The culprit ? Mostly commercial stock photography that has strongly shifted the use of photography to an adjective rather than the noun. Those photographers do not try to create self sustaining images but rather images that will possibly enhance a external message.

That is why we have such a devaluation of photography. It has lost it’s ability to generate it’s own value.

Posted in keyword, license, commercial stock, photojournalism, finance, Royalty free, editorial, transaction, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

November 2, 2010 by pmelcher.

“His latest eye-tracking survey found that “big feel-good images that are purely decorative” are mostly ignored online, while stock photos or generic people are also intentionally disregarded. In contrast, when users know that a picture of a person is real they will engage with the image for extended periods of time.” from the New York Times

“Mr. Nielsen concludes with some advice to those using the Web to hawk products or content: “Invest in good photo shoots: a great photographer can add a fortune to your Web site’s business value.” After all, he notes, most sites are full of “fluff — of which there’s too much already on the Web.”

Posted in Good Enough, commercial stock, corbis, getty, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

October 14, 2010 by pmelcher.

“You want to save it, you should niche it”. From old timers stock gurus to young green microstock expert, they all tell the same tale of potential success : dig yourself into a deep hole where no one else can reach you and stay there. Shoot stuff no one else shoots and bark if they approach. If you can, trademark your subject so no one else can do it.

It’s not about being successful as a photographer anymore, it’s about protecting your turf, like a suburban owner protects his patch of lawn from his neighbors. It’s the typical bourgeois mentality. In face of adversity, retreat and protect. Would you like a pair of well trained Doberman with that ?

Problem is, you do not own your subject. You do not own your clients . You do not own anything ( well, besides your equipment). So there is nothing to protect.

In Microstock, more than anywhere else, clients belong exclusively to the platforms. Contributors have no clue who they are selling to, or why.  In more traditional markets, sales report still carry some information on the licensor. However that is diminishing too. So, tell me, if you do not know who your clients are, what your market is, how can you niche yourself ?

By trial and error ? Sure. Another problem, is that, mostly in microstock, it is very easy to see what works. Makes that niche even more so attractive to others. Quickly.

The commercial stock market has decided to walk on its head. It used to be that photographers would shoot what they loved and sell that. Some, very, very well. That worked well, especially since no one had really any clue what the other was shooting, except by seeing what was being published. Now, everybody can see everybody else’s body of work, especially the vast quantity of what never gets sold. So, instead of shooting what they love, they shoot what has not been shot. They search for a niche, like miner search for a vein.

Let’s say you find a niche. Then what ? How do you find your clients? Since you are the only one with these images, they will find you ? Is that the thinking ? The “field of dreams” marketing strategy ?

Images don’t market themselves ( at least, not yet) . Those images you see going viral are the exception, not the rule. They are billion of images just on Flickr and you think your images will stand out ? because they are rare ? Did you ever think, for one second, that they are rare because no one cares ?

Once you start leaving the crowded marketplace you certainly find less competition but also less clients. And that is what this whole “find a niche” counsel is all about : If you can’t sell what you have it’s because of the competition thus if you eliminate the competition by going where they are  not, you will be successful . It’s not by moving away miles away from Wal-Mart that you will beat them.

Here’s a niche you should try : talent. Shoot everything that everyone else shoots : with talent. No one can copy talent. You will be own out there, because clients will request your images, and no one else’s, regardless of what you shoot.

Leave the niches to those who like living in caves. Your specialty should be how you approach your subject, not your subjects.

Posted in license, commercial stock, Waste of time, Search, prosumer, Royalty free, flickr, Microstock | Print | 1 Comment »

September 7, 2010 by pmelcher.

          Just when you thought is was over, it starts again, like a bloody headache. Getty Images, the agency that suffers and profits the most from micro stock is about to launch a cross brand collection. Called the Agency Collection, at least on Istock,  it will be priced at a premium to Vetta and will be available on iStock, Getty Images, Jupiter and PunchStock.

It will include images from Getty Images, but also from Istock contributors.

Why is this important ? Because this will be the first time that the same image will be available on all brands owned by Getty Images. Will they be priced the same? The post from Istock Kelly Thomspon doesn’t say, although the mention that they will be “priced at a premium to Vetta”seems to indicate that there is a good chance they will be.

A long awaited natural step, this cross brand collection will give Getty a lot of valuable data.

First and foremost, it will show which brand is the most successful at selling these images. If Istockphoto sells more than twenty times what Getty images has sold, you can be sure that will prompt the Seattle giant to revisit the need for sales people, something they are trying hard to prove. If Punchstock doesn’t sell any, they might shut down that brad.. And so on.

It will also show if an image sells better if available on multiple sites at the same time. In theory, it should be.

Istockphoto certainly has an edge in this competition. Not only it is a 100% royalty free platform, unlike the others, but  it has much, much more traffic than the others, which, for RF, is critical.

Kelly Thompson, the current COO, has much more to say in his forum post, mostly regarding another royalty rate adjustment. It is becoming so complicated that these poor microstockers need a high end degree in mathematics to figure it out.You have to wonder if they do it on purpose, a bit like those credit card fine prints.

The launch of this new cross brands collection is due out this month ( September) and it will also be interesting to see how Getty will market it . Will it be one campaign for all brands or all brands independent to each other ? We suspect, the latter.

Because this will be the first time the same images will be available on all brands own by one of the mega giants,it will mark the final breakdown of the walls that use to separate UGC and pro, as well as traditional and Microstock. Now, everything is everywhere at the same time.

Posted in license, Jupiter, alexa, commercial stock, Search, prosumer, Royalty free, getty, transaction, finance, Microstock | Print | No Comments »

September 3, 2010 by pmelcher.

So while most people are getting ready to take a long 3 day weekend to bid a last farewell to summer ( at least in North America) and others are frolicking among the cafe table of Perpignan, mighty Getty images doesn’t miss a beat.

What now ?  Called the “Artist Digital Toolkit” , it is basically a plain and dirty affiliate program with a Starbucks inspired name.  You know, like when you put a link to Amazon on your website and if someone clicks on it and ends up bying something you get a cut? Well, this is the same. Except, it uses contributors to do so.

How so crowdsourcing of them.

Here is the deal : You put one of their specially branded web banners, or e mail signature, or Facebook app, or whatever they give you and if someone clicks on it and purchases an image, you get a % of the sale: 16% if it is new customer, only 7 % if it’s a returning customer, whether it’s your image or not.

Help Getty sale images and get paid to do it.

Not only you give them content to sale, but you actually help them sale it too. What else, clean the offices after hours ?

You could even increase your 30% commission on certain sales to a whopping 37%. How cool is that? I smell riches here..

You will also contribute to Getty SEO campaign by creating new links for them. But you get no penny for that. Don’t push it, ok ?

So, if you are a Getty Contributor, get your free “Artist Digital Toolkit” and watch your bank account grow…

Posted in web 2.0, prosumer, license, commercial stock, Corpocrates, flickr, photojournalism, getty, editorial, transaction, finance, Microstock | Print | No Comments »